Parmal & Anr. vs The State & Ors.

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15440/2024 and CM APPL. 64789/2024, CM APPL.
64790/2024, CM APPL. 64791/2024, CM APPL. 64792/2024

Date of Decision: 12.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

PARMAL & ANR.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naginder Benipal, Mr. Ankit
Siwach, Mr. Udit Vaghela, Mr.
Jaskaran Singh, Mr. Saarthak Sethi,
Mr. Arjun Baliyan, Mr. Satyapal,
Advocates.

versus

THE STATE & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Ms Avni Singh (Panel Counsel-
GNCTD) with Mr Vaibhav Sharma,
Advocates.
Mr. Badar Mahmood (SPC for UOI),
Mr. Ammar Ahmad, Advocate for R-
3.
Mr Vina Rathi, DHCLSC and Ms
Hetu, Advocate for R-4 to 6.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
“ (i) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to modify
para 10 of order dated 07/06/2024 and the respondent No.4 to 7 directed
to be unconditional eviction from the property No. 10 measuring 100
sq.yds., Chhuraiya Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, Sarita Vihar, South
Delhi, New Delhi-110076 and also modify para 10 of order dated
07/06/2024 about the alternative accommodation and maintenance burden
on the petitioners and further directed to be respondent no. 7 to bear all
the duties, responsibility and liabilities towards respondent 4 to 6.
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to modify the
para 10 of the order dated 07/06/2024 and direct to respondent no. 4 and
7 to handover peaceful unconditional possession to petitioners of the suit
property i.e. property No. 10 measuring 100 sq.yds., Chhuraiya Mohalla,
Madanpur Khadar, Sarita Vihar , South Delhi, New Delhi -110076
(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the
respondents 1 to 3 to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners from
the respondents 4 and 7
(iv) Issue a to writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the
respondent No.4 as per order dated 07/06/2024 in para 11 to give half of
the rent of the property w.e.f. 10.06.2023 till the date of order i.e.
07/06/2024 and further directions to the respondent no. 4 to handover the
rent of the property since 07.06.2024 till today and further directions to
the respondent no. 4 and 7 that they may not be any kind of hindrance to
collect the rent from the tenants by the petitioners.
(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ the against
the respondent no.4 to 7 not to create any interference and nuisance in the
peaceful living of the petitioners in suit premises property No. 10
measuring 100 sq.yds., Chhuraiya Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, Sarita
Vihar, South Delhi, New Delhi-110076 .”
2. The petitioners are senior citizens aged about 76 and 73 years
respectively. The petitioner no. 1 is the absolute owner of the property in
question, i.e., House bearing no. 10, Churiya Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi-110076. The respondent no. 4 is their daughter-in-law (wife of
respondent no. 7, the petitioner‟s son), and respondents no. 5 and 6 are
respondent no. 4‟s minor children.
3. The petitioners, alleging ill-treatment and harassment, filed an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

application before the District Magistrate (South-East) under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
(hereinafter „ Senior Citizens Act ‟). The District Magistrate vide order dated
11.05.2023, directed the eviction of the respondent no. 4 and respondent no.
7 from the property.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, respondent no. 4
preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner/Appellate
Authority. The Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated
07.06.2024, while upholding the District Magistrate‟s findings of ill-
treatment, modified the order and directed the petitioners to provide a
permanent alternate accommodation to respondents no. 4 to 6, and further
directed that the rent from the property be collected by the petitioners, who
shall in turn pass on half of it to the respondent no. 4.
5. The petitioners, who are the in-laws, contend that as absolute owners
of the property, they have a right to its peaceful enjoyment. They submit that
while they are ready to respect the respondent no. 4‟s right to a shared
household by providing a reasonable rental accommodation, the direction to
provide a permanent alternate accommodation is onerous and without any
legal sanction. They argued that the statutory schemes of the Senior Citizens
Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter „ DV Act ‟) do not envision the grant of permanent
accommodation. They submitted that the liability to maintain respondent no.
4 rests primarily upon her estranged husband (respondent no. 7).
6. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 6 submitted that the
petitioners had given an undertaking before the Divisional Commissioner to
provide alternate accommodation, and they cannot be permitted to resile
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

from the same. It was further submitted that respondent no. 4 also has to
look after two children, and one of them is a special child. They, therefore,
cannot be deprived from their right of shared-household. It is also contended
that respondent no. 4 does not have any additional source of income and is
managing her livelihood from the rent which she is getting from the
remaining portion of the property in question.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.

8. The order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the District Magistrate records
a positive finding that the petitioners have been subjected to physical and
mental harassment and ill-treatment. Certain complaints were brought on
record. It has also been noted that the petitioners have no source of income
and they are dependent on the welfare pension of the State Government. It is
also noted that they do not have any other means of livelihood. The
directions issued in paragraph no. 9 of the impugned order reads as under:
“ 9. In view of the above observations, I, Isha Khosla, District
Magistrate, District South East, through the powers conferred upon me
vide „The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007‟ and „The Delhi Maintenance of Parents And Senior Citizens Rules
(Amended), Rules, 2016‟, on considering the facts and appreciating the
evidence brought on records, pass the following orders:

(i) That the Respondents Sh. Gajender and Smt. Simmi shall
vacate the entire premises of the subject property bearing House
No. 100, Churiya mohalla, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi- 110076
and handover the vacant peaceful possession of the subject
property to the Complainants Sh. Parmal and Smt. Dharam within
30 days of the receipt of this Order.
(ii) That the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-East District
is directed to ensure enforcement/compliance of the directions
mentioned above, as per provisions under the Delhi Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules,
2016, 3(3)(ii) and also ensure that the life and property of the
Complainants is secured and no harassment is caused to them by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

the Respondents.
(iii) Beat Staff be further deputed for regular visits to the Senior
Citizens Sh. Parmal and Smt. Dharam in order to safeguard the
life and property of the said Senior Citizens. Compliance report of
eviction of the Respondent Sh. Gajender and Smt. Simmi be sent to
this Court within 35 days as per the provisions under The
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007, referred above.”
9. On an appeal preferred by respondent nos. 4 to 6, the Divisional
Commissioner did not find any perversity or illegality therein. He, however,
modified the order passed by the District Magistrate and found respondent
nos. 4 to 6 to be entitled to permanent accommodation, particularly, when
one of the respondent no. 4‟s children is a special child. Findings rendered
in paragraph no. 10 of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is
extracted as under:
10. From the facts of the case, it is clear neither appellant No.1 nor
“
respondents no. 1 & 2 are having good relationship with respondent no. 3.
Respondent no. 3 seems to be having adultery issues as alleged. The
Senior Citizens are admittedly living in a non-habitable house and also
they are neither able to live in the property in question nor able to earn
any income from it. It is noted that the appellant infact failed to give half
of the rent from the property in question to the Senior Citizens in terms of
the interim order passed by this appellate authority vide order dated
10.06.2023. It is also the argument of the Senior Citizens that they were
not allowed to enter into the property in question despite the interim order
of this appellate authority. It is clear that the appellant no. 1/ daughter-in-
law want to monopolize the property in question to herself and is taking
revenge on respondent no. 1 & 2/ her in-laws for her discord with her
husband i.e respondent no. 3. The Senior citizens have the right to live
peacefully with dignity. Also, the daughter-in-law too have the right to
have roof over her head. Both are vulnerable groups and thus the claims
of both the sides have to be harmoniously construed. Both the appellant
no.1 and her children on one side and respondent No.1 and 2 / senior
citizens on the other need protection. It is specifically claimed by the
appellant no. 1 that she has the responsibility of her two minor children i.e
the appellant no. 2 & 3, out of which one is stated to be a special child.
The rental income is her source of income. In view of the need to protect
the interest of both i.e. senior citizens and their daughter-in-law and the
fact that they cannot live together in the same premise due to serious
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

allegations against each other, this authority is of the considered view that
the Judgment of Vinay Verma of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court is more
appropriate in the present situation. Appellants should have permanent
accommodation particularly when appellant no. 3 is a special child. The
appellant submitted during the arguments that she is residing at the fourth
floor which has 3 rooms, kitchen and bathroom. Therefore the respondents
no. 1 & 2 should provide alternate reasonable accommodation of similar
area of permanent nature in the same or nearby vicinity. The respondent
no. 1 & 2 agreed to it. Accordingly, the respondents jointly or severally
shall provide alternate accommodation of similar size to the appellants
and the appellants shall stand evicted from the property in question within
15 days from the date the alternate accommodation is provided to them.
Further, the rent of the entire property in question shall from the date of
this order be received by the Senior Citizens who shall in turn pay/pass on
half of such rent to the appellant no. 1 and her children. This payment by
the senior citizens to the daughter-in-law/appellant No.1 will be an
interim arrangement till it is replaced by final order of Mahila Court in
the Domestic Violence case with respect to maintenance to the appellant
No.1 .”
10. The Supreme Court in the case of S. Vanitha v. The Deputy
1
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. after harmonising the
provisions of the two statutes i.e., the Protection Of Women From Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 („ DV Act ‟) and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 („ Senior Citizens Act ‟), in paragraph no. 38
has held as under:
“38. This Court is cognizant that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was
promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to
senior citizens. Accordingly, Tribunals were constituted under Section 7.
These Tribunals have the power to conduct summary procedures for
inquiry, with all powers of the civil courts, under Section 8. The
jurisdiction of the civil courts has been explicitly barred under Section 27
of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, the overriding effect for
remedies sought by the applicants under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
under Section 3, cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing
remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the PWDV
Act, 2005. The PWDV Act, 2005 is also in the nature of a special
legislation, that is enacted with the purpose of correcting gender

1
(2021) 15 SCC 730
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

discrimination that pans out in the form of social and economic inequities
in a largely patriarchal society. In deference to the dominant purpose of
both the legislations, it would be appropriate for a tribunal under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant such remedies of maintenance, as
envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that do not
result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such
as the PWDV Act, 2005. Section 26 [ “26. Relief in other suits and legal
proceedings.—(1) Any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and
22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family
court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the
respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the
commencement of this Act.(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may
be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the
aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil
or criminal court.(3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved
person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she
shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.”] of
the PWDV Act empowers certain reliefs, including relief for a residence
order, to be obtained from any civil court in any legal proceedings.
Therefore, in the event that a composite dispute is alleged, such as in the
present case where the suit premises are a site of contestation between two
groups protected by the law, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal
constituted under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to appropriately mould
reliefs, after noticing the competing claims of the parties claiming under
the PWDV Act, 2005 and the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 3 of the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and nullify other
protections in law, particularly that of a woman's right to a “shared
household” under Section 17 of the PWDV Act, 2005. In the event that the
“aggrieved woman” obtains a relief from a tribunal constituted under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, she shall be duty-bound to inform the
Magistrate under the PWDV Act, 2005, as per sub-section (3) of Section
26 of the PWDV Act, 2005. This course of action would ensure that the
common intent of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the PWDV Act, 2005,
of ensuring speedy relief to its protected groups who are both vulnerable
members of the society, is effectively realised. Rights in law can translate
to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their
realisation. ”
2
11. Further, in Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha , this Court also laid
down guidelines to harmonize the two Acts and observed as under:
“ If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to

2
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11473
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son-in-law from their
premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain
the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act. ”

“ If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the
parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain
and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both
upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a
joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek
eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative
reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her. ”

3
12. The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja , while
interpreting Section 2(s) and Section 17 of the DV Act, held that the right to
reside in a shared household exists even against a relative of the husband,
but it is not an absolute or perpetual right. The Court further clarified that
the purpose of the DV Act is to provide protection and not to confer any
right of property. It was held that the right of residence is a protective right,
which can be satisfied by providing suitable alternate accommodation.
13. In the present case, the relationship is admittedly acrimonious, as
observed by the Divisional Commissioner. While the petitioners are entitled
to seek eviction, the obligation to maintain the respondent no. 4 and provide
shelter primarily rests upon her husband, respondent no. 7.

14. Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, this Court
finds that the atmosphere in the shared household has become and
detrimental to the well-being of the senior citizens, making cohabitation
impossible.
15. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners are bound by
their undertaking before the Divisional Commissioner is noted. However, an

3
(2021) 1 SCC 414

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

undertaking to provide alternate accommodation cannot be stretched to
mean permanent accommodation when the statute does not provide for the
same. The petitioners remain bound to provide suitable alternate
accommodation, which this Court has secured through the directions herein
below.
16. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Courts, and in order
to strike a balance between the rights of the senior citizens as well as the
daughter-in-law, the Court finds that there are no provisions under the DV
Act or the Senior Citizens Act for the grant of permanent accommodation.
What is recognised therein, is the right of shared-household. In order to
ensure that respondent nos. 4 to 6 enjoy the right of shared-household, the
appropriate directions can be issued. However, the petitioners are legally
entitled to enjoy the property in question, and cannot be deprived of their
vested rights.
17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petition stands disposed of
with the following directions:
(i) The petitioners are directed to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/-
towards the shared-household. Additionally, the petitioners shall
make the payment of further Rs. 5,000/- towards maintenance of the
shared-household accommodation. Let the advance payment for four
months be deposited by the petitioners in the following account of
respondent no. 4 within a maximum period of 45 days from today.
“ Account Holder Name: Simmi Bidhuri
Account no. 6620706631
Bank Name: Indian Bank
IFSC: IDIB000J033
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

CIF: 3276797848 ”
(ii) The respondent nos. 4 to 6 shall vacate the property in question within
a period of 45 days from the date of deposition of advance payment
for four months.
(iii) The petitioners, thereafter, shall continue to make the payment of Rs.
th
25,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- (total Rs. 30,000/-) on or before 10 of the each
month.
(iv) In case of failure to make the payment on behalf of the petitioners of
Rs. 30,000/-, the respondent no.4 to 6 shall be entitled to seek for
restoration of their possession in the property in question.
(v) The petitioners are restrained from creating any third party right over
the property in question except to lease it out on rent without the leave
of the Court.
(vi) All rights and contentions with respect to the property or entitlement
over other assets etc. are left open.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 12, 2026
Aks/AA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:18.05.2026
20:16:14
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV