IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.04.2026 Anuradha Bansal ….Petitioner Versus The District Magistrate, Gurugram-cum-Chairman, Appellate Tribunal, Parents and Senior Citizen Welfare and Maintenance Act, 2007, and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manmeet Singh Bindra, Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Garg, Advocate, and Mr. Tushaar Madaan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. The matter at hand is a glaring example of blatant misuse of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’), at the hands of the petitioner-senior citizen, in connivance with her son-respondent No.4, in an attempt to seek eviction of her daughter-in-law (respondent No.3) from the matrimonial home.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question. Further, she is having two sons, and both of them were paying rent to her to live in the house in question, as reflected in the ITRs, which are annexed with the petition. He asserts that when respondent No.4 stopped paying rent, and left the premises, whereafter, respondent No.3 indulged in harassing the petitioner, the instant proceedings were initiated. Moreover, once the daughter-in-law has already initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others, (2021) 15 SCC 730, she can only get her rights, flowing from the said Act, protected. He submits that, at best, the private respondents can stay in the house in question, but with the permission of the petitioner, and as such, they do not possess any pre-existing right. In such circumstances, it is evident that both the authorities, i.e. the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, erred in law, by not granting the asked for relief.

3) This Court has heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, and has also examined the record.

4) Ex facie, the contents of the application preferred by the senior citizen reflect that the same is nothing, but a disclosure of the defence, which her son intended to set out before the Court, which is seized of the proceedings under the Act of 2005. In such a situation, this Court can safely conclude that the application has been preferred at the instance of respondent No.4 (son), in order to settle personal scores with his wife (respondent No.3), owing to a matrimonial discord.

5) Upon being pointedly asked to refer to any pleadings in the application regarding payment of rent by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, on account of accommodating the house in question, which he subsequently stopped, learned Senior counsel failed to satisfy the Court. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, it was argued that in the grounds of appeal, preferred before the learned Appellate Tribunal, the abovesaid plea was categorically taken by the petitioner. Suffice it to say, incorporation of altogether a new plea in the appeal, in any case, was an endeavour on the part of the petitioner, at the instance of her son, to improve the case, with a view to achieve the ulterior motive, as demonstrated above.

6) The Act of 2007, was enacted to uphold the traditional norms of Indian Society emphasizing the duty of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens. Accordingly, its provisions must be interpreted to achieve the legislative intent, while ensuring that the Act is not misused for the resolution of ordinary civil or property disputes within families. Further, Section 23 thereof, postulates that where a senior citizen has, after commencement of the Act, transferred his/her property by way of gift or otherwise, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide f