Senior citizens, who are absolute owners of their self-acquired property : Daughter-in-law has no absolute right

Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction of Daughter-in-Law from Senior Citizens' Property. Court ensures alternate accommodation under PWDV Act while balancing rights of senior citizens and statutory protections for women.

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the eviction of a daughter-in-law from her in-laws' self-acquired property, emphasizing the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully and with dignity in their own home. The case, Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora, brought to the forefront the competing interests under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The judgment, delivered by Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan, addressed the contentious issue of "shared household" as claimed by the appellant, Manju Arora, under Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act. The court held that while the PWDV Act provides statutory protection against destitution, it does not confer proprietary rights, allowing for eviction if suitable alternate accommodation is provided.

Manju Arora had contested the eviction from the property at GB 25, Shivaji Enclave, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, arguing that the premises were her "shared household" and that her eviction violated her statutory right of residence. However, the court found that the Respondents, Neelam Arora and her spouse, were the absolute owners of the property, having purchased it with their own funds, and were entitled to live peacefully without the ongoing hostility within their home.

The judgment detailed that the Respondents had offered adequate alternate arrangements for the appellant, agreeing to provide a rental accommodation with a monthly rent of Rs. 65,000, along with allied charges. This provision was deemed sufficient by the court to uphold the eviction, balancing the statutory rights of the appellant with the dignity and peace of the senior citizens.

The decision reaffirms the principle that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute or perpetual and must be balanced against the rights of property owners, particularly senior citizens. The court emphasized that the alternate accommodation need not match the luxury of the original premises but must meet the practical needs of the aggrieved woman.

The judgment is significant in clarifying the scope of the "shared household" definition and reinforcing the need to consider the rights and dignities of all parties involved. It underscores the judiciary's role in striking a balance between competing rights in familial disputes, ensuring neither party's dignity or security is compromised.

The Delhi High Court's ruling is expected to have a substantial impact on similar cases, setting a precedent for interpreting the intersection of rights under the PWDV Act and the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own homes.

Bottom Line:

Senior citizens, who are absolute owners of their self-acquired property, have the right to live peacefully and with dignity in their own home. The statutory right of residence under the PWDV Act granted to the daughter-in-law is not absolute or perpetual and may be secured through suitable alternate accommodation.

Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 2(s), 17, 19(1)(f); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XII Rule 6; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2801246