Maya Jain vs Dimple Jain & Anr.

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15532/2023

Date of decision: 10.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

MAYA JAIN
WO SH. NARENDER JAIN
R/O J-1/1, FIRST FLOOR,
KRISHNA NAGAR,
DELHI-110051 .....PETITIONER

(Through: Mr. Deepak Bashta, Advocate.)


Versus


1. DIMPLE JAIN
W/O SH. ROHIT JAIN
R/O H. NO. 225, GALI NO. 4,
FIRST FLOOR, RAM NAGAR,
KRISHNA NAGAR,
DELHI-110051

2. ROHIT JAIN
S/O SH. NARENDER JAIN
R/O 1307, GAUR HEIGHTS,
SECTOR-4, VAISHALI,
GHAZIABAD -201019 .....RESPONDENTS


(Through: Mr. Vineet Nagar, Advocate for R-1.
Ms Shagun Matta, Advocate for R-2.)

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

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


The instant petition seeks to quash the order dated 31.08.2023, passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, and consequently to direct the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55

No. 1 to vacate the property bearing 225, First Floor, Gali No.4, Ram Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
2. The petitioner herein is a senior citizen and the absolute owner of
property bearing no. 225, First Floor, Gali No. 4, Ram Nagar, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter “ subject property ”) and respondent No. 2 is her
son. Respondent No. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner who had been
residing in the subject property along with her two daughters. Owing to
matrimonial disputes between respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No. 1
instituted proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter “ Act of 2005 ”) pursuant to
which the Mahila Court had passed an order restraining the petitioner and
other family members from dispossessing respondent No. 1 from the subject
property without taking recourse of law.
3. On account of the continued occupation of half of the subject property
by respondent No. 1 and the strained relations between the parties, the
petitioner approached the District Magistrate (East), Delhi, by filing an
application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter “ Act of 2007 ”) and the Rules framed
thereunder. The petitioner sought the eviction of respondent No.1 from the
subject property.
4. The District Magistrate, vide order dated 24.01.2023, dismissed the
application. The primary reason for rejection of the application was that
there subsists a protection order in favour of the respondent passed by the
Mahila Court under the Act of 2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.
5. Vide order dated 31.08.2023, the Divisional Commissioner
emphasised upon the need to provide alternate accommodation to
respondent No. 1 while simultaneously affirming the petitioner’s right to
occupy the subject property. Accordingly, it was directed that respondent
No. 1 and her children would be entitled either to allotment of alternate
accommodation from one of the other properties owned by the petitioner or
to reasonable rental accommodation in the same area/locality. While
arriving at this conclusion, reliance was placed upon the decision of the
1
Supreme Court in the case of S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner and
2
Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha .
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, the petitioner has knocked on the doors of this Court.
7. Mr. Deepak Bashta , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has made various submissions and has also argued that with
respect to the reasonable rentals, the Court vide order dated 07.01.2026 has
already directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. However,
according to him, the petitioner does not own any other property which can
be offered to respondent no.1. He, therefore, submits that to that extent, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. With respect to the argument made by respondent no.1 that there is no
finding of the ill treatment, he relies on the judgment passed by this Court in

1
2020 SCC OnLine SC 1023
2
AIR ONLINE 2019 DEL 1878
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55

3
the case of Santosh Tyagi vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
and contends that such a finding of ill treatment is not necessary to protect
the rights of the senior citizens under the provisions of the Act of 2007.
Moreover, Mr. Bashta submits that respondent No. 1 is already in possession
of alternate accommodation and is operating an academy in the name and
style of Dimple Academy for Nursery to Class V at F-65B, West Jawahar
Park, Block-F, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are
vehemently opposed by Mr. Vineet Nagar , learned counsel for respondent
no.1.
10. According to him, there are two concurring orders in his favour which
recognise the right of respondent no.1 of a shared household. He has also
submitted that there are no findings of ill treatment by the concerned
authorities. He seeks to justify the impugned orders and submits that the
same do not call for any interference.
11. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
also perused the record.
12. At the outset, it be noted that in order to secure the rights of both
parties, the Court vide order dated 07.01.2026, issued certain directions,
inter alia , granting liberty to the respondent No. 1 to identify appropriate
alternate accommodation, subject to the petitioner paying rent in the sum of
₹15,000/- per month.


3
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5947
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55

13. The aforesaid order was assailed by respondent No. 1 by way of LPA
No. 100/2026. The Division Bench, vide order dated 27.02.2026, dismissed
the appeal and has made the following observations:-
“3. In our considered opinion, the appeal would not be maintainable for
two reasons, firstly, that the order under challenge herein is an
interlocutory order in nature and, secondly, the Court has only granted
liberty to the appellant to find out appropriate alternative
accommodation. Such an order, in our opinion, only provides for an
interim arrangement which shall however, be subject to the final outcome
of the writ petition.

4. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the
interlocutory order dated 07.01.2026, which is hereby dismissed. We,
however, request the learned Single Judge to expedite the proceedings of
the W.P.(C.) No. 15532/2023 and complete the same as early as possible.
We also provide that in the proceedings of the writ petition, no
unnecessary adjournments on behalf of either of the parties shall be
permitted.”


14. In view thereof, the present petition requires adjudication on its
merits.
15. It is no longer res integra that while a senior citizen is entitled to seek
eviction from his or her self-acquired property under the Act of 2007, such
right cannot be exercised in a manner that completely defeats the statutory
safeguards available to an aggrieved woman under the Act of 2005. In cases
involving competing claims under these two enactments, the Court is
required to balance the rights of the parties and mould the relief
appropriately by directing reasonable alternative provisions, so as to protect
the proprietary rights of the senior citizen while safeguarding the residential
rights of the daughter-in-law.
16. In the aforesaid context, it is seen that the Supreme Court, in the case
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55

of S. Vanitha , has emphasised the necessity of striking a careful balance
between the rights of senior citizens under the Act of 2007 and the
residential rights of a daughter-in-law under the Act of 2005. The Court
underscored that while the Act of 2007 was enacted to provide a speedy and
inexpensive remedy to protect senior citizens from neglect and harassment,
the remedies available under the said Act cannot be interpreted in a manner
that completely nullifies or overrides the statutory protections available to an
aggrieved woman under the Act of 2005. The Supreme Court has further
observed that both legislations are special statutes enacted to protect
vulnerable sections of society and, therefore, in cases where competing
claims arise, such as the instant dispute relating to possession of a residential
property, the concerned tribunal or Court must grant a relief in a way that
recognises and balances the rights flowing from both enactments.
17. Similarly, in the decision in Santosh Tyagi , which has been relied
upon by the petitioner, this Court copiously emphasised that while a senior
citizen is entitled to seek eviction from his or her self-acquired property, the
rights of the daughter-in-law to secure reasonable alternate accommodation
cannot be ignored. The Court reiterated that in situations where disputes
arise between a senior citizen asserting ownership rights over a property and
a daughter-in-law asserting residential rights in the nature of a shared
household, the appropriate course would be to balance the competing
interests of the parties and mould relief accordingly. In the case therein, the
Court directed that financial assistance be provided so as to enable the
daughter-in-law to secure alternate accommodation, thereby ensuring that
the senior citizen’s proprietary rights are respected while at the same time
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55

safeguarding the statutory residential protections available to the aggrieved
woman.
18. Examined on the anvil of the aforesaid legal position, a perusal of the
impugned order indicates that the Divisional Commissioner took note of the
strained relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and
emphasised the necessity of striking a balance between the rights of the
senior citizen and those of the daughter-in-law. In this backdrop, a direction
was issued that the petitioner shall provide alternate accommodation to
respondent No. 1, firstly by offering one of the properties belonging to the
petitioner and, in the alternative, by arranging rental accommodation in the
event the former is not feasible.
19. At the outset, it may be noted that the limited controversy agitated in
the present petition pertains to the direction requiring the petitioner to offer
one of her own properties to respondent No. 1 for the purpose of alternate
accommodation. The impugned order, in essence, upholds the need to strike
a balance between the competing rights arising under the relevant statutory
framework governing the rights of senior citizens and the protection
available to a daughter-in-law in a shared household. In that view of the
matter, the approach adopted by the Divisional Commissioner does not
suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
20. However, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner, in her
rejoinder, has taken a categorical stand that she does not own any property
other than the property in dispute. The said assertion has not been
controverted on behalf of the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55

21. In view thereof, it becomes apparent that the question of offering any
property belonging to the petitioner to respondent No. 1 does not arise. The
only feasible option available for securing alternate accommodation for
respondent No. 1 would, therefore, be by way of payment of rent. To that
limited extent, the order of the Divisional Commissioner is liable to be
modified.
22. The remaining findings recorded by the Divisional Commissioner,
particularly with regard to the need to balance the rights of the parties and
the entitlement of respondent No. 1 to alternate accommodation, do not call
for interference.
23. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by affirming the order
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, with the aforenoted modification.
24. Respondent No. 1 shall vacate the property in question within a period
of two months from today. It is further directed that the petitioner shall pay a
monthly rental amount of ₹15,000/- to respondent No. 1 from the date
respondent No. 1 vacates the property in question, so as to enable her to
secure alternate accommodation.
25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2026
Nc
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:02:55