Proceedings for eviction against a daughter-in-law are not maintainable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as she is not defined as a "child" under the Act; such remedies must be sought through a civil suit.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner, a septuagenarian senior citizen, has assailed the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2- Appellate Tribunal, whereby her statutory appeal was dismissed, besides assailing the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.3- Maintenance Tribunal, whereby her application filed under Sections 21, 22 and 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2007”) was dismissed.

2. At the outset, this Court queried learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, particularly in light of the judgment dated 15.12.2025, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018 ( Babu Lal Sharma vs. Sushila Devi and others ) and connected appeals.

3. In his endeavour to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the ratio penned down in the judgment (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner advanced a threefold argument. Firstly, it is submitted that since the son of the petitioner (husband of the respondent No.4) has already expired, the respondent No.4, being his Class I heir, falls within the definition of “relative”, and hence the said judgment is distinguishable on facts. Secondly, it is submitted that in LPA-1709-2018, which was also disposed of vide the judgment (supra), the senior citizens were not granted the benefit of eviction qua the daughter-in-law inasmuch as the son of the senior citizens was alive at the relevant time, and hence the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. Thirdly, reliance is placed on the verdict rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Rajeswar Prasad Roy vs. The State of Bihar and others ”, 2025(2) ICC 677, to contend that the Supreme Court has allowed eviction against daughter-in-law and son.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and finds the present writ petition to be without merit. The principal reason for drawing this inference stems from the unambiguous observations penned down by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018, holding that proceedings initiated against daughter-in-law under the Act of 2007 are not maintainable. While recording such observations, the verdict delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3822 of 2020, titled “ Smt. S. Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others ”, was duly considered by the Division Bench. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are extracted hereunder:-

“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 Domestic 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