Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that “a woman’s right to reside in a shared household must be balanced against the rights of senior citizens to live in peace, especially when the household in question belongs to them”. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula made such observations in an appeal challenging the orders of the Divisional Commissioner. 

A senior citizen was part of eviction proceedings initiated by her husband Vijay Mehta, against their son and daughter-in-law. The trial court had ruled in favour of the senior citizens permitting them to regain the possession of their property. The Divisional Commissioner, as an appellate authority, upheld the order of the trial court. 

Aggrieved, the daughter-in-law approached the high court challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner asserting her right to reside in the property under the DV Act. 

Advocate Rajiv Bajaj, representing the daughter-in-law, contended that the eviction orders were invalid because they conflicted with the protection available under the DV Act. 

However, the court referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors ((2021) 15 SCC 730). The court reiterated that the provisions of the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act should be interpreted harmoniously to preserve the intention of both statutes.

The court highlighted the necessity of balancing the rights of senior citizens with the protections granted to women in a shared household. The court also emphasized that the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act is not stripped off under protection under the DV Act. 

Furthermore, the court noted that the daughter-in-law was seeking to reside in the property by involving her right to a shared household under section 17 (DV Act). The court, however, observed that the right was not absolute, particularly when it conflicted with the rights of a senior citizen. The court noted that per the recordings of the Divisional Commissioner, the daughter-in-law had created a hostile environment, adversely impacting the senior citizen’s quality of life. 

“While the Petitioner’s right under the DV Act is acknowledged, it does not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act when there is evidence of gross ill-treatment. Thus, there is no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act to entertain the request for eviction”, the court outlined

The court, reviewing the evidence, noted that the hostile environment created by the daughter-in-law adversely affected the senior citizen’s peace and well-being, justifying her request for the eviction of the daughter-in-law. The existing animosity, evidenced by multiple complaints and the breakdown of familial ties, affirmed the necessity for the senior citizen to seek eviction to ensure her right to live peacefully in her advanced years.

Furthermore, the court noted that the senior citizen's son bore the primary responsibility to maintain his wife including securing an alternative accommodation. “This Court is mindful of Petitioner No. 1’s right to reside in the shared household, and recognizes that the primary responsibility for her maintenance, including the provision of alternate accommodation, rests with her husband, Petitioner No. 2”. 

The court, while balancing the rights of the daughter-in-law and the senior citizen, passed the following directions: 
“(a) Petitioner No. 2, is directed to provide financial assistance to his wife, Petitioner No. 1, by paying a sum of INR 75,000/- per month. This amount shall be credited to her bank account on or before the 10th of every month to enable her to secure alternative accommodation… Should Petitioner No. 2 fail to make these monthly payments or express an inability to fulfil this financial obligation, the responsibility to ensure payment shall fall upon Respondent No. 3. 
(b) Once the financial support commences, the Petitioners shall vacate the Subject Property and hand over vacant possession to Respondent No. 3 within one month from the date of the first payment. 
(c) The above directions are subject to any further directions which the Mahila Court may pass for granting additional maintenance to Petitioner No.1”. 

Case Title: Pooja Mehta & Ors. v Government Of Nct Of Delhi (2024:DHC:7873)