Delhi High Court: In a petition challenging the order dated 31-03-2021, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, whereby the eviction of Petitioners 1 and 2 was upheld, Sanjeev Narula, J., noted that the daughter-in-law sought to reside in the subject property by invoking her right to a shared household, as provided under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’). However, this right was not absolute, particularly in cases where it conflicted with the rights of senior citizens. While the daughter-in-law’s right under the DV Act was acknowledged, it did not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Senior Citizens Act’) when there was evidence of gross ill-treatment. Thus, the Court stated that there was no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act to entertain the request for eviction.
Background
In the present case, Petitioner 2 (‘son’) was a son of Respondents 3 (‘mother’) and Respondent 2 (‘father’). The mother was a senior citizen and as a senior citizen, she claimed exclusive possession of the subject property. Petitioner 1 (‘daughter-in-law’) married Petitioner 2 in 2013.
The mother and father filed an eviction petition against their son and daughter-in-law, which was allowed by the District Magistrate through the order dated 18-09-2020. However, at the instance of the parents, certain officials prematurely and forcibly evicted the petitioners from the subject property on 20-09-2020. The petitioner challenged the said action before the present Court, whereby this Court through an order dated 28-09-2020, granted interim protection to the petitioners and ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the police officials involved in the eviction.
Subsequently, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, which was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was non-speaking and erroneous.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
1. Whether the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act can pass an eviction order in light of an existing protection order, and residence claims over shared household under the DV Act?
The Court referred to S. Vanitha v. Commr., Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730 and stated 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 belonged to them. The Senior Citizens Act sought to protect the rights and welfare of senior citizens, while the DV Act provides protection to women who are faced with violence within a domestic relationship and ensures their right to reside in a shared household.
The Court stated that in situations where both statutes overlap, a harmonious construction must be adopted, balancing the daughter-in-law’s right to reside in the shared household against the senior citizen’s right to a tranquil life. The Court stated that it must ensure that neither right was obliterated, but instead coexists to the extent possible. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act was not stripped off by virtue of a protection order under the DV Act.
The Court noted that the daughter-in-law sought to reside in the subject property by invoking her right to a shared household, as provided under Section 17 of the DV Act. However, this right was not absolute, particularly in cases where it conflicted with the rights of senior citizens. While the daughter-in-law’s right under the DV Act was acknowledged, it did not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act when there was evidence of gross ill-treatment. Thus, the Court stated that there was no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act to entertain the request for eviction.
2. Mala fide proceedings
The Court noted the petitioners’ allegation that the proceedings under Senior Citizens Act were initiated with mala fide intentions to circumvent the protection granted to the daughter-in-law under the DV Act. However, the Court stated that this claim lacked substantive evidence. The proceedings before the District Magistrate and the appellate authority focussed on the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully, and there was nothing on record to indicate that the initiation of proceedings was a mere pretext to bypass the protection order.
The Court stated that there was no straitjacket formula to conclusively ascertain the averments of ill-treatment and the District Magistrate, and the appellate authority had the discretion to determine the appropriate relief based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, given the gravity of the allegations and the evident breakdown of relations between the parties, eviction was the most appropriate remedy.
The Court noted the petitioner’s plea concerning their financial constraints and health conditions and stated that the Senior Citizens Act did not grant automatic protection to adult children and their spouses solely based on their financial or health status. While it was unfortunate that the petitioners might face hardships due to eviction, the Court must consider the senior citizen’s right to a peaceful and secure living environment, especially given the allegations of mistreatment.
Further, the Court stated that the petitioner’s assertion that the mother was dependant on them for care was contradicted by her expressed desire to live free from their presence. The Court stated that the right to autonomy in deciding one’s living arrangements, especially in their advanced years, was recognized under the Senior Citizens Act. Mere fact that the mother might be physically unwell, did not compel her to accept the presence of a person, who had contributed to her distress. The Court could not impose on the senior citizen a forced living arrangement against her will, especially when it was found to be a source of her suffering.
3. Ill-treatment and grounds for eviction
The Court noted the ill-treatments faced by the respondents, as they had alleged that the petitioners engaged in misappropriating household assets, including the removal of valuable paintings, jewellery, and other articles. This behaviour was indicative of economic exploitation, a recognized form of elder abuse under the Senior Citizens Act. The deliberate removal of valuable items from the Subject Property is not only a form of economic harassment, but also reflects lack of respect for the senior citizens’ rights and possessions.
The respondents had further stated that they were confined to a single room in a property that had more than six rooms, the majority of which were occupied and controlled by the petitioners. The Court stated that this restrictive use of space demonstrated a clear attempt to undermine their comfort and autonomy. The Court noted that the ill-treatment of the petitioners had reached such a level, that the respondents felt compelled to publicly disown their son, daughter-in-law and children from the property. This act of disownment was a significant indicator of the severity of the familial discord and the distress suffered by the senior citizens. It reflected the respondents’ intent to distance themselves from the petitioners, further highlighting the toxic environment within the household.
Thus, the Court stated that the eviction order passed by the District Magistrate was a necessary and appropriate response to the ongoing ill-treatment of the senior citizens.
4. Balancing Rights
The Court stated that the relationship between the petitioners and the mother, a senior citizen had deteriorated beyond repair. Allegations of ill-treatment, financial exploitation, and mental harassment were raised and corroborated by complaints and evidence presented before the authorities. This strained and hostile environment had severely impacted the senior citizen’s peace and well-being in her own home, thereby entitling her to seek the eviction of the petitioners.
However, to ensure that the daughter-in-law was not left without suitable housing, the Court directed that she should be provided with a monthly allowance sufficient to secure such accommodation. Therefore, to harmonize the senior citizen’s rightful claims with the daughter-in-law’s residential rights under the DV Act, the Court issued the following directives:
-
Daughter-in-law’s husband, i.e. the son was directed to provide financial assistance to his wife, by paying a sum of Rs, 75,000 per month on or before the 10th of every month, to enable her to secure alternative accommodation.
-
Once the financial support commences, the petitioners should vacate the subject property and hand over vacant possession to the mother within one month from the date of the first payment.
The Court stated that these directions were subject to any further directions which the Mahila Court might pass for granting additional maintenance to the daughter-in-law.
[Pooja Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7112, decided on 04-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Rajiv Bajaj, Saurabh Soni, Advocates; Vineet Mishra, Rishav Dubey, Ruchir Jain, Pawan Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD with Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocate; Vivek Chib, Senior Advocate with Vaibhav Sethi, Priya Pathania, Roma Bedi, Unnati Jhunjhunwala, Mansi Gupta, Brij Harani, Advocates.