Anuradha Bansal vs District Magistrate & Others

LPA-2464-2026
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
115
LPA-2464-2026
Anuradha Bansal
... Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate and others
... Respondents
Judgment
Reserved
on
Judgment
Pronounced
on
Judgment
Uploaded
on
Whether only
the operative
part of the
judgment is
pronounced
Whether the
full judgment is
pronounced
31.08.2026 07.09.2026 08.09.2026 No Yes
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present:- Mr. Sachit Sehijpal, Advocate (THROUGH V.C.) and
Mr. Deepam Raghav, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Vashisth, DAG, Haryana.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters
Patent challenging judgment dated 20.04.2026 passed by the learned Single
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.08 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2464-2026
- 2-
Judge, whereby a writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking eviction of
respondent No. 3 (her daughter-in-law) from a residential property invoking
the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 (for short, “the Act of 2007”) has been dismissed.
2. Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is the
absolute owner of the residential property. After the death of her husband, her
two sons i.e respondent No. 4 and his elder brother, were residing in the same
property and were paying rent to her, as reflected from the income tax returns.
Counsel states that when respondent No.4 ceased to pay rent and vacated the
premises, his wife - respondent No. 3 started harassing the appellant. It is his
contention that the private respondents could reside in the residential premises
with the permission of the appellant and they do not possess an independent or
pre-existing right in the immovable property. Counsel urges that the learned
Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act
of 2007 had been invoked at the behest of respondent No. 4 to settle personal
scores with his estranged wife respondent No. 3.
3. We have heard counsel for the appellant at some length
and have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by
him besides examining the record.
4. It cannot be disputed that there is a marital discord
between respondent No.3 and respondent No.4, who is the son of the appellant.
Respondent No.3 has separately filed an application under the Act of 2007,
which is pending. After examining the merits of the present application,
learned Single Judge has returned a categorical finding that the application has
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.08 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2464-2026
- 3-
been preferred by the appellant before the Maintenance Tribunal to set up a
defense, which her son – respondent No. 4 intends to take in the proceedings
initiated by respondent No.3 under the Act of 2007. Learned Single Judge has
observed that present proceedings have been initiated by appellant at the
behest of her son, respondent No.4. This finding has been arrived at
particularly after noticing that plea regarding non-payment of rent by
respondent No.4 was not set up before the Maintenance Tribunal nor
substantiated before the writ Court. The underlying objective of the Act of
2007 is to uphold the obligation of children and relatives to provide for senior
citizens, but the provisions of the statute cannot be pressed into service for the
adjudication of matrimonial or property disputes. They cannot be used to evict
an estranged daughter-in-law, who otherwise possesses a right to reside in the
shared household as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District and others, (2021) 15,
SCC 730 .
5. The property in question had devolved in equal share upon
the appellant as well as both her sons upon the demise of appellant's husband.
Appellant chose to proceed only against her younger son and his wife without
initiating any action against her elder son. This circumstance further reinforces
the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge as to the real purpose behind
the proceedings.
6. In view of the aforegoing discussion, this Court does not
find any error, much less any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge warranting interference in an intra-court appeal.
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.08 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2464-2026
- 4-
7. Instant Letters Patent Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Although this appeal deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs, yet noticing
the advanced age of the appellant, this Court is refraining from doing so.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
(RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE
07.09.2026
Brij
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.08 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.