206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2530-2020 Date of Decision : 28.10.2025 SONIA VERMA .....Petitioner VERSUS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GURUGRAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Respondent no.2, who is a mother-in-law of the petitioner, filed an application (Annexure P-1) under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2007') and Rules, 2009 framed thereunder, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal, Gurugram, seeking eviction of the petitioner, and her husband who has been arrayed as performa respondent no.3 in the instant petition, from the house in question. She further sought a direction upon the police authorities to provide adequate police protection to her.

2. The aforesaid application was transferred to the District Magistrate, Gurugam (hereinafter referred to as the 'the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned'), who through order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure P-3), ordered eviction of petitioner and her husband (respondent no.3). The learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, considering the fact that respondent no.2 (senior citizen), is an absolute owner of the house in question, therefore, can seek eviction of her son and daughter-in-law who are creating trouble to her peaceful life.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in an attempt to, throw challenge to the impugned order, submits that the petitioner being daughter-in-law cannot be evicted with the aid of Act of 2007, specifically, when her right is protected under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of

2005').

4. He further submits that the house in question is shared household, and this aspect has not been examined, by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, at the time of passing eviction order.

5. He further 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 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 also 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 in addition, 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 of the petitioner, and there is no matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband (performa 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