RT v. GNCTD, 2026

The dispute arose after the death of the petitioner's husband in February 2020.

The petitioner, who was the daughter-in-law of the respondents, continued residing in the in-laws’ house along with her son.

Disputes subsequently emerged between the parties regarding family properties, LIC policies, and other financial assets.

The in-laws approached authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging ill-treatment and seeking eviction of the petitioners from the property.

Initially, the District Magistrate directed the petitioners to vacate only the ground floor portion of the property.

On appeal, the Divisional Commissioner ordered eviction of the petitioners from the entire premises after observing that relations between the parties had become severely acrimonious and peaceful cohabitation was no longer possible.

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the property constituted a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The petitioners also claimed rights in properties allegedly acquired through ancestral business funds and in LIC proceeds of the deceased husband.

The respondents contended that the continued occupation by the petitioners was disturbing their peaceful enjoyment of the property.

The father-in-law also stated before the Court that he was willing to hand over documents relating to an alternative accommodation available to the petitioners after they vacated the premises.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the daughter-in-law and her son.

The Court upheld the eviction order passed by the Divisional Commissioner directing the petitioners to vacate the entire premises.

The Court observed that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are summary in nature and are limited to ensuring protection and peaceful residence of senior citizens.

The Court held that such proceedings cannot be converted into forums for adjudication of complicated civil disputes concerning ownership, inheritance, ancestral property claims, or financial entitlements.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner (2021) and reiterated that a woman's right to reside in a shared household must be balanced against the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own property.

The Court noted that the petitioner was financially independent as she was employed as a government school teacher earning more than ₹1 lakh per month.

The Court also considered the fact that the petitioners already had alternative accommodation available to them.

The Court observed that relations between the parties had become extremely acrimonious, making continued cohabitation impossible.

Accordingly, the Court refused to interfere with the eviction order and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises within 45 days.

The judgment reinforces the protective objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Court carefully balanced the competing rights under the Domestic Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act.

Reliance on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner demonstrates judicial recognition that shared household rights are not absolute and must coexist with the rights of senior citizens.

The ruling clarifies that authorities under the Senior Citizens Act possess limited and summary jurisdiction.

The Court avoided transforming eviction proceedings into full-fledged civil trials concerning inheritance and ownership disputes.

Financial independence of the daughter-in-law played a significant role in the Court’s assessment of equities.

Availability of alternative accommodation further weakened the petitioners’ claim to continue residing in the disputed premises.

The judgment underscores that senior citizens cannot be compelled to continue living in hostile or acrimonious domestic environments.

The decision is significant in balancing welfare legislation protecting women and senior citizens in family property disputes.

The ruling may influence future cases involving conflicts between residence rights under the Domestic Violence Act and eviction proceedings initiated by elderly parents under the Senior Citizens Act.