Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 04 July, 2024
th
Pronounced on: 27 August, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 4190/2023
SMT. SANTOSH TYAGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. C. Chauhan, Mr. Jagdish
Prasad, Ms. Shweta Mathur, Mr.
Rupesh Singh, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghuvendra Upadhyay, Panel
Counsel for GNCTD with Ms.
Purnima Jain and Mr. Vaibhav
Tripathi, Advocates for R-1 and R-2.
Mr. Karan Tyagi, Advocate for R-3, 4
& 5. Mr. Dinesh Tyagi, Respondent
No.3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. Mrs. Santosh Tyagi, a senior citizen, has filed the present petition
th 1
assailing the order dated 17 August, 2022, passed by the Respondent No.
1/ Divisional Commissioner dismissing her appeal against the order dated
th
13 February, 2021, passed by the Respondent No. 2/ District Magistrate,
1
“the impugned order”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 1 of 14
South West, Kapashera under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
2
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The said order rejected Petitioner’s application
for eviction of Respondents No. 3 to 6. This case brings us at an intersection
of the senior citizen’s rights, as stipulated under the Act, with the
entitlements of her daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Protection of
3
Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, emphasizing the delicate
balance between safeguarding the welfare of the elderly and protecting
matrimonial home rights.
PETITIONER’S CASE:
2. Counsel for the Petitioner has presented the following facts and
contentions:
2.1. The Petitioner, aged about 80 years, is the sole and registered owner
of the property bearing No. RZ/A-34, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New Delhi,
4 th
110045. This property was acquired through a Sale Deed dated 05 April,
1974.
2.2. Residing within this property are Respondents No. 3, Mr. Dinesh
Tyagi, and Respondent No. 4, Mrs. Babita Tyagi—her son and daughter-in-
th
law, married since 16 January, 1996. Their children, Respondent No. 5,
Ms. Kumari Iti, and Respondent No. 6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Tyagi, also reside
with them. The area in contention is the ground floor of the residence, which
includes three rooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a common toilet.
2.3. From the outset, Respondents No. 3 to 6 have maintained a non-
cooperative and hostile demeanour, frequently threatening the Petitioner,
2
“Senior Citizens Act”
3
“Domestic Violence Act”
4
“the subject property”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 2 of 14
which has rendered cohabitation in the same property untenable.
Consequently, the Petitioner was compelled to disown Respondents No. 3 to
6 via a public notice. Additionally, Respondents No. 3 and 4 have attempted
to coerce her into partitioning the property under the guise of acquiring
ownership. However, as the property is self-acquired by the Petitioner,
Respondents No. 3 to 6 possess no legal claim, right, or interest in it.
th
2.4. Aggrieved by the conduct of Respondents No. 3 to 6, on 14 October,
2019, Petitioner filed an application for eviction of the said Respondents
under the Senior Citizens Act before the District Magistrate. It was during
these proceedings that it came to light Respondent No. 3 had initiated
divorce proceedings against Respondent No. 4 in the Dwarka District Court.
2.5. Subsequent to the Petitioner’s eviction application, Respondent No. 4,
nd
on 02 February, 2021, filed a complaint against the Petitioner under
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila Court), South-West District, Dwarka. The Petitioner submitted her
reply and countered the allegations and sought discharge, arguing that the
th
complaint was filed as a counterblast to her eviction application. On 30
May, 2022, the Mahila Court dismissed the Petitioner’s discharge
application. However, upon challenge, the Court of Additional Sessions
th
Judge, South-West, Dwarka, on 28 November, 2022, discharged the
Petitioner and her husband citing the absence of specific allegations against
them.
2.6. Petitioner can recount several incidences of harassment and ill-
rd
treatment faced by her at the hands of the Respondents No. 3 to 6. On 23
August, 2020, Respondents No. 4 and 5, informed her that Respondent No. 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 3 of 14
was infected with COVID-19 and demanded a separate room for isolation,
which was not available. When Petitioner suggested that Respondents No. 4
and 5 stay in government isolation centres, Respondent No. 5 attempted to
expose the Petitioner to the virus. Petitioner’s husband also sought police
help, however, no action was taken.
th
2.7. Thereafter, on 13 February, 2021, the District Magistrate dismissed
the petition by briefly stating that there is no ill-treatment to justify the
eviction. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s appeal before the Divisional
th
Commissioner was also dismissed on 17 August, 2022.
2.8. In the above circumstances, the Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking
eviction of Respondents No. 3 to 6.
RESPONDENTS’ CASE
3. Per contra , counsel for Respondents No. 4 to 6 urged the following
contentions to defend the impugned order:
3.1. The Petitioner has fabricated facts and filed the petition solely to
harass Respondents No. 4 to 6 with the aim to have the said Respondents
evicted from the subject property.
3.2. The site plan of the subject property as submitted by the Petitioner is
incorrect as the subject property consists of six rooms, where the Petitioner
and her son, Respondent No. 3, currently reside. Respondents No. 4 to 6 are
forced to live in a single room despite there being six rooms in the subject
property, as Respondent No. 3 has refused to offer any assistance or
accommodation within the property to them.
3.3. Respondent No. 4 is striving to preserve her marriage for the sake of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 4 of 14
her children, denies ever mistreating the Petitioner.
3.4. The Petitioner in collusion with her son, Respondent No. 3, has
initiated frivolous proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act after 24 years
of marriage solely because Respondent No. 3 wishes to re-marry. This is
evident as Respondent No. 3 has filed a divorce petition which is pending
before the Dwarka Court.
3.5. Respondent No. 4 has filed a petition under Section 12 of the
Domestic Violence Act to safeguard her residential rights and to prevent her
th
from being ousted. Through order dated 05 March, 2021, the Mahila Court
directed the Petitioner not to evict Respondents No. 4 to 6 from the shared
household or commit any domestic violence till further orders.
3.6. Although Respondent No. 3 earns a substantial income from his
online business and other sources and leads a lavish lifestyle, he has
neglected to support Respondent No. 4 or their children. Respondent No. 4
is lacking an independent income to meet her financial needs or litigation
expenses. Nonetheless, she has managed to arrange the marriage of
th
Respondent No. 5 on 09 December, 2022, with the assistance of her family
members, without any contribution from Respondent No. 3.
3.7. The instant petition is a gross abuse of process of law. Reliance is
5
placed on the decisions in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja and S.
Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District and
6
others, where the Supreme Court addressed similar situation and legal
grounds as those raised by the Petitioner in the present case. Petitioner has
5
(2021) 1 SCC 414.
6
(2021) 15 SCC 730.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 5 of 14
no right to evict their daughter-in-law as the Senior Citizens Act does not
have any overriding effect over the Domestic Violence Act.
T HE I MPUGNED O RDER :
4. The Divisional Commissioner has upheld the order of the District
Magistrate and declined the request for eviction holding that no ill-
treatment or harassment can be deduced from the facts of the case. For
ease of reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order reads as
under:
“13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the present case
and the documents placed on record, this appellate authority is
of the view that there is no ill-treatment or harassment at the
hands of the respondent no. 2 i.e the daughter-in-law and her
children i.e the respondent no. 3 & 4 as appellant failed to
show how she has been ill- treated and harassed by the
respondent no. 2 and her children. The complaint/ eviction
application has been filed to take undue advantage of the
Senior Citizen Act as it is an admitted fact that the there is a
matrimonial dispute between the respondent no. 1 &
respondent no. 2. Thus, in order to throw daughter-in-law out
of the suit property filed the eviction application in collusion
with her son i.e respondent no. 1.
14. It is also pertinent to note that the Domestic Violence
Complaint of respondent no. 2 is also pending before the
Hon'ble Dwarka Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Vanitha
case protected the residential rights of the daughter-in-law
where there is a marital discord and there is a presumption
that the provisions of Senior Citizen Act may be misused to
oust the daughter-in-law from her shared household. Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held that:
“21.....Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an
overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective
of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a
shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act
2005, would defeat the object and purpose which the
Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 6 of 14
legislation. The law protecting the interest of senior
citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left
destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives.
Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act 2005 cannot be
ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets
of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. Hence
the right of a woman to secure a residence order in
respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the
simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by
adopting the summary procedure under the Senior
Citizens Act 2007." However, the over-riding 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 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 S.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 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 3
PWDV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens Act 2007. Section of
the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-
ride 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
duty-bound to inform the Magistrate under the PWDV Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 7 of 14
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 realized. Rights in law can translate to rights
in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their
realization....”
“24 For the above reasons, we have come to the
conclusion that the claim of the appellant that the
premises constitute a shared household within the
meaning of the PWDV Act 2005 would have to be
determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot
simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of
the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act
2007.”
15. No doubt, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen
Act, 2007 and Delhi amended Rules, is a welfare legislation and
enacted for the benefits and protection of senior citizens/Parents, so
that they can spend their twilight years peacefully but it also imposes a
duty on the District Magistrate to see that the provisions of the Senior
citizen Act and amended Rules shall not be misused as a tool to evict
daughter-in-law from her shared household in collusion with son. Ill-
treatment cannot be presumed simply on the statement of complainant.
No ground appeal is hereby dismissed as there is no infirmity in the
impugned order dated 13.02.2021.
The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. Copy of this order be
provided to both parties. Record of the Proceedings before DM (South-West)
be also sent back to DM with copy of this order.”
A NALYSIS AND F INDINGS :
5. The case highlights a recurring social issue where matrimonial
discord not only disrupts the lives of the couple involved but significantly
affects senior citizens. In this instance, the elderly Petitioners, at a
vulnerable stage of their lives, faced undue distress due to persistent familial
conflicts. This situation reflects the need to address the welfare of senior
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 8 of 14
citizens amidst family disputes.
6. The Petitioner is, undisputedly, the owner of the subject property
which she has acquired through her own means. She asserts that neither
Respondent No. 3 nor his wife, Respondent No. 4, provided any care for
them, and the ongoing marital discord between the two is a constant source
of discomfort and stress for the Petitioner and her husband, which she likens
to a slow death. The described household conditions manifest not just as
verbal disputes but extend into the physical environment of the home,
contributing to an unhealthy and stress-filled living situation for the senior
citizens. The allegations of intentional exposure to COVID-19 represent a
severe breach of duty of care expected from family members towards the
elderly, who are more vulnerable to such health risks. Furthermore, the
presence of pets whose maintenance is not properly managed, leading to
unsanitary conditions, compounds the disrespect and neglect faced by the
elderly couple. These details paint a distressing picture of the Petitioner’s
daily life, encumbered with neglect, health hazards, and psychological
distress. Such circumstances compellingly argue for the necessity of
ensuring that the living environment of senior citizens is safe, dignified, and
free from any form of abuse or neglect, aligning with the core objectives of
the Senior Citizens Act.
7. In reconciling the conflicting legal protections under the Domestic
Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act, this Court is guided by precedents
that stress a harmonious interpretation of both statutes to ensure justice is
tailored to the specific familial and social contexts of the parties involved.
The Domestic Violence Act primarily safeguards the rights of women within
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 9 of 14
domestic spheres, ensuring protection against abuse and the right to reside in
the matrimonial or shared household. However, this right must be
considered in conjunction with the protections afforded to senior citizens
under the Senior Citizens Act, which emphasizes the dignity, welfare, and
peaceful living conditions for the elderly, allowing for the eviction of
occupants causing distress. Thus, the Court would have to balance
Respondent No. 4’s right to residence under Section 17 of the Domestic
Violence Act and the right of eviction of the senior citizens provided under
Rule 22 of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen
Rules, 2016. The Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. The Deputy
7
Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District and others, has elucidated on
this issue and observed that the rights of the interested parties are to be
balanced by harmonious construction of the two legislations. The Supreme
Court highlighted that in cases of competing claims between the parties, the
reliefs must be moulded accordingly to the circumstances. In Satish
8
Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja , the Apex Court expounded that the right
to residence of a daughter-in-law is not an indefeasible right, further
observing that the Courts deciding such cases must endeavour to balance the
rights of the parties.
8. In the present case, subsequent to Petitioner’s eviction application,
Respondent No. 4 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act against the Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an
application for rejection of the complaint and sought discharge. The said
7
(2021) 15 SCC 730.
8
(2021) 1 SCC 414.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 10 of 14
th
application was dismissed by the Mahila Court on 30 May, 2022. However,
in appeal, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge set aside the said order
and discharged the Petitioner. The operative portion of the said order, reads
as follows:
“12. Appellant is a 77 year old lady and admittedly though she is
residing in the same house but is living separately. No specific date, time
or occasion has been mentioned by the respondent as to how or in which
manner the appellant committed any act of domestic violence on her.
Merely because appellant is the owner of the premises where respondent
is staying or merely because of her status of mother-in-law of respondent,
appellant cannot be subjected to facing the trial in the present case
instituted by the respondent U/s 12 of DV Act.
..xx.. ..xx.. ..xx..
13. No specific allegations are appearing against the appellant for
inflicting any domestic violence against the respondent, hence, relying
upon above stated authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court,
proceedings are required to be dropped against appellant in the present
case by taking the aid of provision of Section 28 of DV Act. Accordingly,
appellant is discharged from the present case. Impugned order dated
30.05.2022 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court-05), South-West District,
Dwarka Courts in case “Babita Tyagi Vs. Santosh Tyagi & Anr”, MC No.
142/2021 qua appellant Santosh Tyagi stands set aside. Appeal stands
allowed.”
9. In light of the said order, it is evident that the allegations made against
the Petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act could not be substantiated.
Therefore, the reasoning of the Divisional Magistrate in the impugned order
which places considerable reliance on the domestic violence complaints
against the Petitioner, is no longer tenable. While the residential rights of
Respondent No. 4 must be taken into account, however, given the dismissal
of the domestic violence complaint, the Court cannot assume that the instant
petition was filed solely to evict Respondent No. 4 from her shared
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 11 of 14
household. The Appellate Court’s decision effectively nullifies the basis for
assuming that the Petitioner’s actions were driven by a motive to unlawfully
dispossess Respondent No. 4, instead redirecting focus towards ensuring that
the Petitioner’s legitimate grievances and rights as a senior citizen.
10. Additionally, it is to be noted that the Petitioner filed the eviction
th
application against Respondents No. 3 to 6 on 14 October, 2019 and
subsequently, Respondent No. 3 filed the petition seeking divorce from
Respondent No. 4. One year later, Respondent No. 4 filed the complaint
under Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, the allegation made by
Respondent No. 4 that Petitioner is acting in collusion with Respondent No.
3, is also not borne out. Hence, Petitioner must not be deprived from
utilizing her entire property and be forced to live with Respondent No. 4,
when there are instances to show that there is a rift between the son and the
daughter-in-law. There is no justification to allow Respondents No. 3 to 6 to
continue occupying the subject property, which is admittedly owned by the
Petitioner.
11. In light of the foregoing, having regard to the established legal
principles and the Supreme Court decisions in S. Vanitha and Satish
Chander Ahuja , the principle of “balancing of interests” becomes crucial,
ensuring that no legal provision is used as a tool for injustice against another
vulnerable member of the household. Notably, there is an obligation upon
the husband to provide for residence and maintenance to his wife. In the
instant case, no order has been shown whereby the Mahila Court had fixed
any maintenance amount to be paid to Respondent No. 4 by the Petitioner or
Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner’s allegations of ill-treatment are mainly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 12 of 14
targeted towards Respondents No. 4 to 6 and not her son, although eviction
has been sought against him as well. This is because of the fact that the
continuous disputes between Respondents No. 3 and 4 are a constant source
of distress for the Petitioner and her husband. On the other hand,
Respondent No. 4 asserted that the subject property constitutes a “shared
household” and, therefore, she has a right to reside in the subject property as
provided under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. In such a
situation, while the Petitioner is entitled to seek eviction from the subject
property, Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 must also provide an alternate
9
reasonable accommodation to Respondent No. 4. Considering the
competing claims and composite disputes under the two legislations, it is
appropriate to mould reliefs in recognition of the claims of Respondent No.
4. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to permit the Petitioner to exercise
her rightful ownership over the subject property, while ensuring that
Respondent No. 4 is provided with an alternate accommodation or a
monthly payment towards alternate accommodation.
12. To facilitate a resolution that respects the rights of the Petitioner and
the residential rights of Respondent No. 4 under the Domestic Violence Act,
the following directions are issued:
(a) Respondent No. 3, Mr. Dinesh Tyagi, is directed to provide financial
assistance to his wife, Respondent No. 4, by paying a sum of INR 25,000/-
th
per month which shall be credited to her bank account on or before the 10
of every month, in order to enable her to secure alternative accommodation
for herself. The details of such bank account shall be provided by
9
See also: Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha & Anr ., 2019:DHC:6519.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 13 of 14
Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3 within a period of one week from
today. In absence of such details, payment be made through Demand Draft/
Pay Order. Should Respondent No. 3 fail to make the monthly payments or
expresses an inability to fulfil this financial obligation, the responsibility to
ensure payment shall fall upon the Petitioner.
(b) Once the financial support commences, Respondents No. 3 to 6 shall
vacate the subject property and hand over vacant possession to the Petitioner
within two months.
(c) The above directions shall be taken into consideration and be also
subject to any decision that may be given by the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila Court), South-West District, Dwarka in respect of maintenance and
residence etc., qua Respondent No. 3.
13. With the above directions, the present petition, along with pending
application(s), if any, is disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 27, 2024
as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.08.2024
20:04:14
W.P.(C) 4190/2023 Page 14 of 14