Daughter-in-Law’s Right to Shared Household “Not Being Indefeasible”: Delhi High Court

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Punam, is married to Sh. Rakesh Kumar Malawliya, son of respondent no. 2. They married on 22.04.1996 according to Hindu rites and customs, and have two children aged 24 and 21. The Court noted “some matrimonial discord” between the petitioner and her husband.

The proceedings unfolded as follows:

• 13.08.2018: The petitioner filed a complaint under the D.V. Act against her husband and respondent no. 2. Among other prayers, she sought a residence order under Section 19 restraining respondent no. 2 from dispossessing her from the shared household in House No. 20, Ground Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. That application is stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), South, Saket Court.
• 23.10.2018: Respondent no. 2 instituted proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules seeking the petitioner’s eviction from the shared household.
• SDM inquiry: The Sub-Divisional Magistrate reported that “on inquiry nothing could be established about any harassment being caused by the petitioner.” He described the matter as a “mutual family dispute and conflict between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law,” from which “no specific conclusion could be drawn on whether any harassment is being caused by the petitioner or not.”
• 10.02.2021: The District Magistrate rejected respondent no. 2’s application, considering the material on record and the SDM’s report.
• 07.07.2022: On respondent no. 2’s appeal under Rule 22(4), the Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal. He directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over peaceful possession, and not to create any hassles in respondent no. 2’s peaceful life. He also directed the District Magistrate and the concerned DCP to ensure compliance and to secure respondent no. 2’s life and property.

The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226.

Issues Before the High Court

The petition raised two broad questions:

1. Whether Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules are ultra vires the Senior Citizens Act and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether, on merits, the Divisional Commissioner’s order of 07.07.2022 could stand.

The merits challenge included the contentions that Rule 22(3)(1) does not apply to a daughter-in-law, and that eviction cannot follow without proof of non-maintenance or ill-treatment and without a prayer for maintenance.

Challenge to Rule 22(3)(1)

The petitioner’s case. Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, for the petitioner, argued that:

• •The State Government exceeded its rule-making power under Section 32 of the Senior Citizens Act by vesting a power of eviction the parent statute does not contemplate. The Act, she said, is primarily about maintenance and protection of senior citizens.
• •The rule violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 because it acts against women’s interests and the protection available to them under the D.V. Act.
• •Section 17 of the D.V. Act gives a woman in a domestic relationship a right to reside in the shared household irrespective of any right, title or beneficial interest, and carries a non-obstante clause.
• •Under Sections 22 and 32 read together, the rule-making power cannot be used to provide something the Act does not. Section 23 permits eviction only as a consequence of declaring a transfer of property void.
• •Reliance was placed on Hukam Chand v. Union of India, Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Revenue) Delhi Admn. v. Siri Ram and Dr. Mahachand Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council for the proposition that delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the principal Act.
• •The petitioner also cited two Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions, Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Sudershan Kumar v. State of Haryana. In Simrat Randhawa, a similar provision in the Punjab Action Plan was declared ultra vires.

The respondents’ case. Respondent no. 2 (through Ms. Aakanksha Kaul) relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., rendered on 04.08.2026, to say the issue was no longer res integra. GNCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor supported her. The Union of India (respondent no. 5) argued that the State Government has no power under the Senior Citizens Act to frame a rule providing for eviction. The Court recorded that this stand was based on the position the Union took before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as recorded in Simrat Randhawa.

Competing Rights under the Two Welfare Legislations

The Court first set out the scheme of the Senior Citizens Act:

• Chapter II deals with maintenance of parents and senior citizens. Section 4 makes children’s obligation extend to the needs of the parent “so that such parent may lead a normal life.”
• Chapter V deals with protection of life and property of senior citizens. Section 22(1) lets the State Government confer powers and impose duties on a District Magistrate to ensure the Act is properly carried out. Section 22(2) provides that “[t]he State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens.”
• Section 3 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other enactments.

The Court then noted that Section 17 of the D.V. Act also contains a non-obstante clause. It recorded that this interplay was considered by the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. As summarised by the Court, the Supreme Court recognised that where two special Acts contain non-obstante clauses the later law typically prevails. However, since both statutes deal with “salutary aspects of public welfare and interest,” it held that in deference to the dominant purpose of both, a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act should grant remedies “that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special enactments, such as the DV Act.”

The Court reproduced paragraphs 37 and 38 of S. Vanitha. The key positions are:

• Allowing the Senior Citizens Act “to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household,” would defeat the object of the D.V. Act.
• “Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed.” A woman’s right to secure a residence order for a shared household “cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act.”
• Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act “cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a ‘shared household’ under Section 17” of the D.V. Act.
• Where the premises are a “site of contestation between two groups protected by the law,” the Tribunal should “appropriately mould reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties.”
• The common intent of both statutes is “ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable members of the society.”

Court’s Analysis

Rule 22(3)(1) is referable to Sections 22 and 32

The Court observed that the 2009 Rules were framed to give effect to the Senior Citizens Act and, among other things, provide the procedure for eviction from the property or residential building of a senior citizen or parent. Under Rule 22(3)(1)(i), a senior citizen or parent may apply to the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate for eviction of his or her son, daughter or legal heir from property “on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment.” Under clause (iv), the District Magistrate, if of the opinion that the person is not maintaining and is ill-treating the senior citizen, yet occupies the property, and should be evicted, issues a show-cause notice.

The Court held that these provisions “are not only referable to the rule making power of the State Government available to it under Section 32 of the Senior Citizens Act but [are] also referable to Section 22.” Since Section 22(2) requires a “comprehensive action plan” covering both life and property, the Court said, an eviction order passed by the District Magistrate on a senior citizen’s application “in certain circumstances” cannot be said to be ultra vires. It added that Section 22(2) itself permits such a plan to be issued “by a simple executive order or circular or in the form of rules such as the impugned Rules.”

The judgments relied on

• •Punjab and Haryana decisions. The Court held that Simrat Randhawa and Sudershan Kumar “cannot be said to be good law any more in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kant Gupta.”
• •**Ravi Kant Gupta.** As extracted by the Court, the Supreme Court reasoned that where an Act confers jurisdiction, it impliedly grants the power to do all acts essentially necessary to its execution. It held that the Tribunal under the Act “has power to order eviction in order to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.” The Delhi High Court noted that the case came from Uttar Pradesh, where no rule akin to the impugned rules existed.
• •*Samtola Devi v. State of U.P. The Act does not specifically provide for eviction proceedings, but on account of the observations in S. Vanitha*, the Tribunal may order eviction “if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens.”
• •**Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar.* The Court cited it as reiterating the Tribunal’s authority to order eviction, and reproduced paragraph 25 of S. Vanitha* as quoted there. That paragraph says eviction “would be an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection,” but “this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute.”
• •**Kamalakant Mishra v. Collector.** The Court cited it for the proposition that, the Act being welfare legislation, its provisions “must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose,” and that the Tribunal is within its powers to order eviction of a child or relative when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.
• •**Hukam Chand, Siri Ram and Mahachand Prasad Singh.** The Court accepted that “no delegated legislation is permissible which travels beyond the scope of the principal act itself.” It held these judgments of no help to the petitioner because the power to make the impugned provisions flows from Section 32 and the rules also “owe their existence to Section 22(2).”

On this reasoning, the Court concluded that the challenge to Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) “fails, which is hereby rejected.” The judgment does not separately analyse the Article 14, 15 and 21 arguments. The rejection is recorded on the discussion above.

Right to Shared Household Not Indefeasible

This is the pivotal part of the judgment on merits, and it turns heavily on the facts recorded.

The petitioner’s argument. She contended that Section 17 of the D.V. Act gives her a right to reside in the shared household irrespective of title. Because her Section 19 residence application was still pending, she argued, eviction could not have been ordered without disposing of it.

The Court’s response. The Court pointed to the Divisional Commissioner’s findings:

• The petitioner “already has a separate house at Bahadurgarh.”
• She “is working as a Post Graduate Teacher,” and “having a substantial income, she can easily live at her own residence.”
• Respondent no. 2 had stated in her application that she wants to spend her remaining life peacefully, and that matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband “should not result in any harassment which drags the respondent no.2, who is a senior citizen, into frivolous litigations and complaints.”

The Court tied this to Section 4(3) of the Senior Citizens Act, under which a child’s obligation extends to the needs of the parent “so that such parent may lead a normal life.” It reasoned that if respondent no. 2, “who is otherwise entitled to live peacefully,” cannot live normally and peacefully “in the evening of her life” because of the discord between her son and daughter-in-law, then “the order of eviction of the petitioner has rightly been passed.”

The Court then added a second angle:

Three points are worth noting about what the Court did and did not say:

3. The Court did not hold that the D.V. Act right is extinguished or overridden. It held that the claim is “not indefeasible” and must be weighed against the senior citizen’s right to a normal and peaceful life.
4. The recorded facts were central: the petitioner’s employment, her decent salary, her separate house at Bahadurgarh, and respondent no. 2’s stated wish for a peaceful life free of litigation and harassment.
5. The judgment does not say that every daughter-in-law may be evicted, or that a pending D.V. Act application never matters. The conclusion is tied to this record. The Court also noted that the SDM had been unable to establish harassment, and the judgment rests the outcome on the Divisional Commissioner’s findings and the weighing described above.

Does Rule 22(3)(1) Extend to a Daughter-in-Law?

The petitioner argued that Rule 22(3)(1) applies only to “son, daughter and legal heirs,” not to a daughter-in-law. The Court rejected this, relying on two Division Bench decisions of the High Court:

• Shadab Khairi v. State (LPA No. 783/2017, decided 22.02.2018): The rule cannot be interpreted restrictively. Quoting paragraph 20, the Court noted that beneficial legislation in a welfare State “demands a liberal interpretation wide enough to achieve the legislative purpose,” and that the object of the Act and Rules “leave no manner of doubt that the Maintenance Tribunal… has the power and jurisdiction to render the order of eviction.”
• Darshna v. Govt of NCT of Delhi (LPA No. 537/2018, decided 03.10.2018): The Division Bench approved the Single Judge’s view, as reproduced in paragraph 10. Excluding a daughter-in-law from Rule 22(3)(1)(i) “would debilitate the provisions of the Rules and render it incapable to serve the object of Section 22 of the Act.” It was “difficult to accept” that a senior citizen entitled to evict a maltreating son “has no option but to suffer the ill-treatment at the hands of his/her daughter-in-law,” and a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in her in-laws’ premises “cannot be greater than her husband’s.” The expression “son and daughter or legal heirs” also covers “the families of the daughter/son,” “legal heirs” is to be understood “in the broadest sense,” and a daughter-in-law is a heir “in certain circumstances (widow of a pre-deceased son).”

The Court concluded that the submission that a daughter-in-law falls outside Rule 22(3)(1) “is not tenable.”

Eviction Proceedings vis-à-vis Maintenance Proceedings

The petitioner also argued that relief under the Senior Citizens Act requires proof of harassment, ill-treatment and non-maintenance, and that only maintenance, not eviction, can be granted. She noted there was no prayer for maintenance and no proof of non-maintenance.

The Court rejected this. An application under Rule 22(3)(1) “can be filed… irrespective of the fact whether maintenance is claimed or not.” Its reasoning rests on the forum and nature of the proceedings:

• Maintenance proceedings are filed before the Tribunal constituted under Section 7, under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Senior Citizens Act.
• Eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) are instituted before the District Magistrate, whose appellate authority is the Divisional Commissioner.

The two are “independent of each other.” So even if no prayer for maintenance has been made by instituting appropriate proceedings, an application under Rule 22(3)(1) “can be maintained.”

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Decision and Conclusion

The Court held that the Divisional Commissioner’s order “has correctly been passed” and “does not call for any interference by this Court.” It dismissed the writ petition, disposed of pending applications, and made no order as to costs.

The judgment ties its conclusion to the record before it. These include the SDM’s inability to establish harassment, the petitioner’s employment as a Post Graduate Teacher with a decent salary, her separate house at Bahadurgarh, and the mother-in-law’s stated wish to live out her remaining life peacefully. Its core reasoning is that the D.V. Act right to a shared household and a senior citizen’s right to a normal, peaceful life must be read harmoniously. In this case, the petitioner’s claim was held “not being indefeasible” against respondent no. 2’s.