Citation: Punam v. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 11683/2022 (with CM APPLs. 34755/2022, 40490/2022, 36932/2023, 8321/2026, 8322/2026 and 33770/2026); 2026:DHC:8543-DB; CNR No. DLHC010298882022.
A daughter-in-law challenged an eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act, arguing that her pending case under the Domestic Violence Act protected her right to reside in the house. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that a daughter-in-law’s right to live in a shared household is not absolute and must be balanced against a senior citizen’s right to live a peaceful life, meaning a senior citizen can lawfully seek eviction even if matrimonial proceedings are ongoing.
Court ruled that a senior citizen’s statutory right to seek eviction and peaceful possession of their property prevails and is not barred simply because other family disputes are ongoing.
Punam, the daughter-in-law, has been living in a ground-floor house in Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, owned by her mother-in-law (Respondent No. 2, a senior citizen). She married the senior citizen’s son in 1996 and they have two grown children. After marital discord, Punam filed a Domestic Violence Act complaint in 2018 against her husband and mother-in-law, seeking a residence order to stay in the shared household. That case is still pending. In October 2018, the mother-in-law applied to the District Magistrate under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, seeking Punam’s eviction. The District Magistrate rejected it in February 2021, relying partly on the SDM’s report that harassment could not be established and that it was a mutual family dispute. The Divisional Commissioner allowed the mother-in-law’s appeal in July 2022 and ordered Punam to vacate peacefully and not disturb the senior citizen’s life.
Punam challenged this order in the Delhi High Court and argued that the eviction rules are ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the Senior Citizens Act and violate Articles 14, 15 and 21. On 30 September 2026, the Division Bench (Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia) dismissed the petition. It held that the rules are valid because they flow from Sections 22 and 32 of the Act and are backed by recent Supreme Court rulings (S. Vanitha, Samtola Devi, Ravi Kant Gupta) that allow eviction to protect senior citizens. On the merits, the Court noted that Punam has her own house in Bahadurgarh and works as a Post Graduate Teacher with a decent salary, so her right to the shared household had to be balanced against the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully. It also held that a daughter-in-law is covered by the rule, and that an eviction application can be filed even without a separate maintenance claim. No costs were awarded.
Legal principle: The Delhi High Court held that Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, which empower the District Magistrate to evict a son, daughter or legal heir on grounds of non-maintenance and ill-treatment, are not ultra vires the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The power is referable both to the general rule-making power under Section 32 and to Section 22(2), which mandates a “comprehensive action plan” for protecting the life and property of senior citizens, and that plan may take the form of rules. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in S. Vanitha, Samtola Devi, Rajeswar Prasad Roy, Kamalakant Mishra and Ravi Kant Gupta, the Court held that eviction is an incident of enforcing the right to maintenance and protection, and that the contrary Punjab and Haryana High Court rulings (Simrat Randhawa, Sudershan Kumar) are no longer good law. Following Shadab Khairi and Darshna, “son, daughter or legal heirs” is to be read broadly and covers a daughter-in-law. Eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) before the District Magistrate (appeal to the Divisional Commissioner) are independent of maintenance proceedings before the Tribunal, so such an application is maintainable even without a maintenance claim. A daughter-in-law’s right of residence in a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is not indefeasible and must be balanced against the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully; the pendency of a Section 19 residence application does not bar eviction, particularly where the occupant has an alternative residence and independent income.