IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 Decided on : 15.12.2025 BABU LAL SHARMA ...Appellant Versus SUSHILA DEVI AND ORS . . . Respondents

2. LPA-267-2019 (O&M)

MADHU BALA ...Appellant Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, YAMUNA NAGAR AND ORS . . . Respondents

3. CWP-33528-2019 (O&M)

HARJINDER KAUR ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS . . . Respondents

4. CWP-36830-2019 (O&M)

JYOTI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . . . Respondents

5. LPA-1709-2018 (O&M)

ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANR. ... Appellants Versus THE ADDL. DISTT MAGISTRATE PATIALA AND ORS. . . . Respondents . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. H. S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-267-2019.

Mr. Sandeep Chabra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. G. S. Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-36830-2019.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. The issue involved in the present bunch of cases which includes the appeals as well as the writ petitions (details of which have been mentioned herein-above), have been filed by the senior citizen as well as by the daughter-in-law as the case may be, is whether the senior citizens can seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from the premises in question under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as ‘2007 Act’). The said issue needs to be decided on the basis of the provisions of the 2007 Act that as to whether the senior citizen can take action against the daughter-in-law independently for her eviction.

2. The 2007 Act gives power to the senior citizen to claim the benefit of eviction envisaged under 2007 Act against their children and also against their relatives.

The definition of the "children” as well as the "relative" under

2007 Act is provided under Section 2 (a) and 2 (g) respectively, which is as under:-

“"children" includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-

daughter but does not include a minor.

"relative" means any legal heir of the childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his property after his death ”

3. A bare perusal of the above would show that in the definition of the children, the daughter-in-law has not been included; even, the definition of the relatives provides for the persons who will inherit the property of the senior citizens after their death.

4. Though, as per the settled principle of law, the seeking of eviction from the property belonging to the senior citizens is envisaged under 2007 Act but the same can only be claimed against the children or the relatives and the same cannot be enforced outside the purview of the said definitions including the strangers.

5. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3822 of 2020 titled “Smt. S. Vanitha Vs.The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and ors.”, decided on 15.12.2020, has described the rights of a daughter-in-law to reside in the matrimonial house and the courts have been directed to balance the rights of the senior citizens with daughter-in-law. Once, under the Protection of Women from Domestice Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as ‘PWDV Act, 2005’), a right has been given to the daughter-in-law to continue to occupy the matrimonial house, probably, keeping in view the provisions of the PWDV Act, 2005, while enacting 2007 Act, the daughter-in-law has not been included in the definition of children so as to seek remedy against her under 2007 Act. The revelant paragraph of the judgment passed in S. Vanitha ‘s case (Surpa) is as under:-

“The above extract indicates that a significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared househol