Holding that the State’s power to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for the protection of senior citizens’ life and property under the Senior Citizens Act extends to rules for eviction, the Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge to Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Delhi Rules by a daughter-in-law and upheld the order directing her to vacate her mother-in-law’s property, observing that her right to reside in a shared household is not indefeasible.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a daughter-in-law challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, and an order of the Divisional Commissioner directing her to vacate the property of her mother-in-law, a senior citizen [Punam v. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia delivered the judgment on September 30, 2026, after reserving it on August 4, 2026. The petitioner had also sought a declaration that the two clauses of the Rule are ultra vires the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the case
The petitioner married the respondent’s son in 1996 and has two children. Amid marital discord, she filed a complaint on August 13, 2018 against her husband and her mother-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking, among other reliefs, a residence order under Section 19 restraining her dispossession from the shared household in Gautam Nagar. That application is stated to be pending before the Mahila Court at Saket.
On October 23, 2018, the mother-in-law applied for her eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate reported that nothing could be established about harassment by the petitioner and that it was a mutual family dispute. Relying on that report, the District Magistrate rejected the application on February 10, 2021. On the mother-in-law’s appeal under Rule 22(4), the Divisional Commissioner allowed it on July 7, 2022, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over peaceful possession, and not to create any hassles in the respondent’s peaceful life.
Contentions
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Meera Kaura Patel argued that the Delhi Government exceeded its rule-making power under Section 32 of the Senior Citizens Act by vesting a power of eviction that the parent Act does not contemplate, and that the rule violates Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, which gives a woman in a domestic relationship a right to reside in the shared household regardless of title. She relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decisions in Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Sudershan Kumar v. State of Haryana, and on Supreme Court rulings that delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the principal Act. She also argued that the Rule covers only sons, daughters and legal heirs, not a daughter-in-law, and that eviction cannot be ordered without proof of non-maintenance or ill-treatment.
Advocate Aakanksha Kaul, for the mother-in-law, contended that the issue was no longer open after the Supreme Court’s judgment of August 4, 2026 in Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act can order eviction where necessary to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen. The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Lieutenant Governor supported her, while the Union of India argued that a State Government has no power under the Act to frame a rule providing for eviction, relying on the stand it took before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Rule 22(3)(1) held to be valid
Examining the scheme of the Act, the Bench noted that Chapter II deals with maintenance and Chapter V with protection of life and property, and that Section 22(1) lets the State Government confer powers and duties on the District Magistrate, while Section 22(2) requires it to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for protecting senior citizens’ life and property. It held that Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) are referable both to the rule-making power under Section 32 and to Section 22, and stated:
“Sub-section 2 of Section 22 itself permits the State Government to prescribe a comprehensive plan which may be issued by a simple executive order or circular or in the form of rules such as the impugned Rules.”
The Court accepted that no delegated legislation can go beyond the principal Act, but held that here the power flows from Sections 32 and 22(2). It held that the Punjab and Haryana rulings are no longer good law in view of Ravi Kant Gupta, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in S. Vanitha, Samtola Devi, Rajeswar Prasad Roy and Kamalakant Mishra, which hold that a Tribunal under the Act may order eviction if necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of a senior citizen. The challenge to the Rule was rejected.
Shared household right is not indefeasible
On merits, the Bench referred to the Divisional Commissioner’s findings that the petitioner already has a separate house at Bahadurgarh and works as a Post Graduate Teacher with a substantial income, and that the mother-in-law wished to spend her remaining life peacefully without being dragged into litigation over the marital discord. It recalled that S. Vanitha asks for harmonious reading of the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act, and held:
“…her claim to reside in the shared household not being indefeasible has to be considered vis-à-vis right of the respondent no.2, who is a senior citizen to live a normal and peaceful life.”
Invoking Section 4(3) of the Act, which extends the children’s obligation to a parent’s needs so that the parent can lead a normal life, the Court said that a senior citizen who cannot live peacefully because of a son’s marital discord is entitled to relief, and that the eviction order was rightly passed.
Daughter-in-law and maintenance proceedings
Rejecting the argument that the Rule does not cover a daughter-in-law, the Bench relied on its earlier Division Bench decisions in Shadab Khairi v. State and Darshna v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which hold that the Rules must be read liberally and that the words son, daughter and legal heirs take in the families of the senior citizen’s children. It also held that eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) before the District Magistrate, with an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, are independent of maintenance proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 before the Tribunal, so that an application for eviction is maintainable even if no maintenance has been claimed.
Finding no reason to interfere with the Divisional Commissioner’s order, the Court dismissed the petition without costs.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling settles in Delhi that the eviction procedure in the 2009 Rules is a valid exercise of delegated power and applies to a daughter-in-law, in line with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. It also shows that the Court weighed the daughter-in-law’s right of residence against the senior citizen’s right to a peaceful life, with weight placed on her separate house and independent income, so each case will turn on its own facts. The residence application under the Domestic Violence Act remains pending before the Mahila Court.
Case Title: Punam v. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi and Others [W.P.(C) 11683/2022]
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Zainab Hussain, Varun Mudgil and Sarthak Malawaliya for the petitioner; Standing Counsel (Civil) Sameer Vashisht with Panel Counsel Vaishali Gupta for the GNCTD; Advocates Aakanksha Kaul, Aman Sahani, Simran Khorana, Manisha Agrawal Narain and Aditi Singh for respondent no. 2
