The Delhi High Court stayed the eviction of a daughter-in-law from her shared household, holding that the Senior Citizens Act cannot override a woman’s right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Vanitha.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, in an interim order, has stayed the eviction of a daughter-in-law from her shared household, emphasizing that the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 must be harmoniously construed with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).
The order was passed by Justice Sachin Datta, sitting as Vacation Judge, in a petition challenging eviction proceedings initiated under the Senior Citizens Act.
Legal Issue
The central issue before the Court was whether a daughter-in-law can be evicted from a shared household through summary proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, when she enjoys subsisting protection under the PWDV Act.
The petitioner contended that she was facing an imminent threat of dispossession pursuant to eviction orders passed by the District Magistrate (West), GNCTD, and upheld by the Divisional Commissioner.
Background of the Case
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court challenging the eviction order dated April 5, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate (West), GNCTD, in Eviction Case No. 692/DCW/2022. The said eviction order was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority, namely the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), Government of NCT of Delhi, in proceedings initiated under Rule 22(3)(4) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.
Aggrieved by both the original and appellate orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court seeking protection against dispossession.
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Osama Suhail, argued that the authorities failed to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha vs The Deputy Commissioner (2021) 15 SCC 730.
In S. Vanitha, the Supreme Court categorically held that:
The right of a woman to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the PWDV Act cannot be defeated merely by invoking the summary eviction mechanism under the Senior Citizens Act.
The judgment stressed that both legislations serve important social welfare objectives and must be interpreted harmoniously, not in a manner that nullifies protections granted to women facing domestic violence.
The petitioner also relied on an interim protection order dated August 18, 2022, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, under the PWDV Act.
The Magistrate had observed that:
The respondents are restrained from entering the room of the shared household in which the petitioner is residing.
The petitioner argued that this subsisting order was not considered in its proper perspective by the authorities while ordering eviction.
Delhi High Court’s Observations
Justice Sachin Datta took note of the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner and observed that the said decision mandates a harmonious construction of the Senior Citizens Act with the PWDV Act. The Court also considered the fact that a subsisting interim protection order under the PWDV Act was operating in favour of the petitioner.
Additionally, it was noticed that interim protection had already been granted to the petitioner during the pendency of Appeal No. 1121/2025 before the Divisional Commissioner, which weighed with the Court while granting further interim relief.
The Court reiterated that Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to override the statutory right of residence available to women under the PWDV Act.
Pending further hearing, the Delhi High Court passed the following directions:
- The status quo regarding title and possession of the property shall be maintained
- The eviction of the petitioner is stayed until the next date of hearing
- Notice issued to respondents
- Replies to be filed within three weeks
- Matter listed for February 3, 2026
Case Title:
Rashmi @Pooja Bahry vs Neena Bahry & Ors.
W.P.(C) 19838/2025
READ ORDER
READ MORE REPORTS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS