##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103 CWP-18241-2023 Date of Decision : March 24, 2026

SAVITA MAHAJAN -PETITIONER V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Saksham Kaushik, Advocate,

Mr. Devyansh Arora, Advocate, and Ms. Marvi Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate

for the respondent No.3.

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, with Ms. Vanshika Tuteja, Advocate

for the respondent No.4.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, a sexagenarian senior citizen, assails the order dated 19.05.2022, whereby her application filed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”), seeking eviction of the respondents No.3 and 4 (son and daughter-in-law) from the house in question, was dismissed by the respondent No.2- Additional Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner further assails the order dated 24.11.2022, whereby her application seeking recall/review of the

order dated 19.05.2022 was also dismissed by the respondent No.2 on the

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.03.25 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-18241-2023 2 following grounds: (a) that, in light of the verdict dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3822 of 2020, a daughter-in-law cannot be evicted from the shared household/matrimonial home by her parents-in-law; (b) that, in light of the verdict dated 23.01.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4744-2018, the power of eviction vested in the District Magistrate has been struck down; and (c) that the

authority concerned did not have the power to review its own order.

2. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 has been passed by an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, warrants interference on this ground alone. It is contended that post the drawing of the verdict dated 23.01.2020 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP- 4744-2018 titled “Simrat Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab”, the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate and not by the Appellate Tribunal-

cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner.

3. Learned State counsel does not dispute the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the petitioner and fairly concedes that the eviction application (supra) ought to have been adjudicated by the

Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 vehemently opposes the maintainability of the eviction application (supra) against the respondent No.4/daughter-in-law. It is submitted that the issue whether eviction proceedings can be initiated against a daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Act of 2007 stands conclusively answered in the

negative by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018 (Babu Lal DEVINDER YADAV 2026.03.25 16:05

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-18241-2023 3 Sharma vs. Sushila Devi and others), decided on 15.12.2025, and, therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated against the respondent No.4

(daughter-in-law) are wholly untenable.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. A perusal of the application (Annexure P-3) reveals that it is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, as such applications lie before the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The issue is no longer res integra, as it has been consistently held that applications seeking eviction orders under the Act of 2007 are required to be filed before the Maintenance Trib