208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21046-2021 Date of Decision : 28.10.2025 GUNJAN .....Petitioner VERSUS THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate &

Mr. Saurabh Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

Respondent no.3 ex parte.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner, who is a daughter-in-law, fetching grievance from order dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, Senior Citizen Welfare and Maintenance of Parents, Apellant Tribunal, Palwal (respondent no.1), filed the instant petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner, and they were earlier proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 23.08.2021, however, on the application preferred by the petitioner, the said ex parte order was set aside, at the time of passing the impugned order, which clearly reflects that there is a complete violation of principle of natural justice, and only on this account, the impugned order requires interference.

3. He further submits that the petitioner, being daughter-in-law has a right, to protect her right, in the shared household, and the learned Tribunal concerned, has not examined this issue at all, rather solely considering respondent no.2 (senior citizen), as the absolute owner of the property, the order of eviction has been passed.

5. He also placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court in 'Sunita vs. District Magistrate and Appellate Tribunal, Hisar and others' passed in CWP-38095-2018 (O&M) (decided on 01.10.2025), wherein, this Court after following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Smt. S.Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others,” 2021 AIR (SC) 177, protected the rights of a daughter-in-law.

6. He in addition submits that in the judgment (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has cast an obligation upon the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, to adjudicate the issue; as to whether or not, the daughter-in-law has any title, or right in the shared household;

and whether, the house in question, is a shared household or not.

7. He, to a greater extent, submits that in case the Act of 2007, is allowed to give overriding force and effect, irrespective of competing entitlement of a woman to a shared household, within a meaning of Act of 2005, it would defeat the basic object and purpose, for which the Act of

2005 has been enacted by the legislation.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2, strongly opposes the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. He submits that the house in question is not a shared household, and there is no matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband (respondent no.3).

10. He further placed reliance upon the decision rendered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in “Manmohan Singh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others”, 2016 (1) RCR (Civil) 838, to submit that the wife and children occupying the house owned by old parents, are in the capacity of licensee only, and they cannot live against the wishes of the parents and the parents are entitled to evict them under the Act of 2007.

11. This Court has examined the issue, as raised before this Court and has heard the rival submissions.

12. Before this Court embark upon the lengthy submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, let us have a glimpse upon the precedent law, which would be helpful in deciding the validity of the impugned order. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment Smt. S. Vanitha (supra), after examining the legislation intended to deal with salutary aspects, stressed harmonious construction between two statutes, i.e. the Seni