Ratika Kalra vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.

$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3099/2026 & CM APPL. 14953/2026
Date of decision: 23.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
RATIKA KALRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Jha and Ms. Neha
Mishra, Advs.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms Shehnaz Ali, Adv. for R-3,4 & 5.

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

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner’s grievance arises out of order dated 19.05.2025 passed
by the District Magistrate (West), New Delhi ( Maintenance Tribunal ),
whereby, the petitioner and her family members have been directed to
vacate the property bearing no. 42, Pragati Apartments, Club Road, Paschim
Vihar, West Delhi-110063.
2. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondents no. 3 and 4-
senior citizens. The said respondents had filed an application under Rule
22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Rules, 2009
( Rules ), framed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

2007 ( Senior Citizens Act ), seeking eviction of the petitioner and her
family members from the property in question. The Maintenance Tribunal,
vide order dated 19.05.2025, had allowed the said application.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the
Appellate Authority cum Divisional Commissioner ( Appellate Authority ).
The said appeal has been dismissed, finding no justification to interfere with
the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.
4. The primary ground of challenge is that, the authorities did not
harmonise the rights of the petitioner under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( DV Act ) with the provisions of the Senior
Citizens Act as per the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v.
1
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors . It is contended
that the petitioner has been residing in the property-in-question, immediately
post her marriage, and therefore, is her matrimonial home.
5. According to learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, the
authorities have also not given due consideration to interim order dated
06.08.2022 passed in a pending civil suit between the parties, whereby, the
respondent-senior citizens have been directed not to create any third-party
interests in the property in question. It is contended that, in proceedings
under the DV Act, the concerned Mahila Court has also restrained the
respondent-senior citizens from dispossessing the petitioner without
following due process of law.

1
(2021) 15 SCC 730
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

6. Further, according to him, the authoritities have also failed to
appreciate the fact that the petitioner has a minor child who has been
diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Intellectual Disability and
has also been certified to have fifty per cent permanent disability by the
competent authority. It is submitted that the needs of the child are
intricately connected to the petitioner’s right to reside in the shared
household under Section 17 of the DV Act. The child’s schooling,
specialized medical treatment and therapy, are structured around their
present place of residence. Therefore, it is her case that the impugned orders,
therefore, prejudicially affect the minor child, who is also the grandchild of
respondents no. 3 and 4.
7. The submissions are strongly opposed by learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, who contends that, without prejudice, the respondents
are ready and willing to offer suitable accommodation for a reasonable
amount towards rent. It is her contention that an independent house has
already been purchased at Sector 70A, Gurugram, by the petitioner in the
joint name of the petitioner and respondent no.5 at the expenses of
respondent nos.3 and 5.
8. It is also submitted that from 01.06.2022 to 12.04.2026, the petitioner
has stayed in the present place of residence only for 260 days, that too, only
at night. Further, she contends that the parental house of the petitioner is also
situated close to the property in question, and the child attends school,
medical treatment, etc. therefrom. She, therefore, submits that on the pretext
of welfare of the child, the petitioner is trying to prevent the respondent-
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

senior citizens from peacefully enjoying their property, without any
justification.
9. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the record.
10. As per the Rule 22(3)(1) of the Rules, a senior citizen is entitled for
eviction from his property on account of his non-maintenance and ill
treatment. Admittedlty, the property in question is owned by respondent no.
3. Before the Maintenance Tribunal, respondent-senior citizens had alleged
that the petitioner and her family members who were residing along with
her, were meting out ill-treatment to the former. The Maintenance Tribunal
has found merit in these allegations
11. The order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal would indicate that the
SDM, Punjabi Bagh, was directed to submit a report, who, vide report dated
16.06.2022, found that the property is owned by respondent no.3.
12. In the instant case, the allegations of ill treatment have been made
against the petitioner. The Maintenance Tribunal in paragraph nos.74 to 78
of the order has taken note of ill treatment which was meted out to the senior
citizen. Those are the findings of fact which do not require to be interfered
with in the absence of their being palpably illegal or wholly perverse. The
same are extracted as under:
“ 74. Thirdly, as far as ill-treatment and harassment is concerned, it has
been submitted by the Applicants/Complainants that the Respondent no. 1
alongwith her family members have been abusive, both physically as well
as verbally. In this regard, the applicants lodged complaints to Police
Station but no action has been taken. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

Delhi has held in regard to the said issue of ill-treatment and harassment
in the recent Judgement titled as Sandeep Gulati Vs. Divisional
Commissioner, GNCTD vide W.P. No. 2761 of 2020 dated 13th March,
2020 as under:
“… a Senior Citizen is merely to show that its property needs
protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she
needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other
legal heir.”
75. It is mentioned here that the statement of the applicant was recorded
during the field enquiry by the official of the Sub Division, Punjabi Bagh
wherein they stated that the respondents have harassed and abused them
on several occasions and sometimes respondent no. 1 and her family
members have even raised hand on them, used to reside at the subject
forcefully. Due to these reasons, they have filed the present complaint
before this authority.
76 . It is mentioned here that the Court of Shri Ankit Karan Singh, Civil
Judge-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has passed an order on
06.08.2022 in the matter of CS SCJ No. 1177/21 titled as Ratika Kalra Vs.
Nalin Kalra and Ors. wherein the Hon’ble Court directed to the
defendants (herein complainants) not to create any third party interest in
the suit premises till the pendency of the present suit or till defendant no. 1
sets up an alternate accommodation. In thgis regard, the complainants
submitted that their son Nalin Kalra and respondent No. Ratika Kalra
booked a flat at Pyramid Fusion Homes, Apartment No. 005, admeasuring
598.53 Sq. Ft. carpet Area and 100 Sq. Ft. Balcony area situated on
Ground Floor of Tower-3 at the affordable Group Housing Project namely
Pyrmid Fusion Homes developed at revenue estate of Village-Palra,
Sector 70A, Gurugram, Haryana, India amd the Pyramid Fusion Homes
issued the offer of possession letter on 21.08.2024 but the respondent no. 1
intently has not taken the possession of the said flat.
77. It is also mentioned here that the complainant submitted during the
hearing that they are ready to pay the outstanding amount/demand of
Pyramid Fusion Homes if the respondent readty t taken over the
possession of the said property.
78 . Hence, it is evident that the Respondents are causing harassment to the
complaints. Now therefore, by the powers vested Under clause (1)(i) of
sub-rule 3 of Rule 22 of the Delhi Maintenance and welfare of Parents and
th th
Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended on 19 December, 2016 and 28
July, 2017, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be
met if the Respondents along with family members are evicted from the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

subject property so that Complainant/Applicant/Petitioner and other
family members can enjoy the remaining years of their life in peace.”

13. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. A
perusal of the same reveals that therein, the petitioner had not challenged the
findings with respect to ill treatment of the senior citizens. Further, the
Appellate Authority has given due consideration to the petitioner’s
submission with respect to her rights under the DV Act as well as the needs
of her child. The relevant portions of the order are extracted below, for
reference:
“6. The material on record establishes that the suit property is self-
acquired property of the Respondent No.-1. The Appellant does not claim
any ownership or co-ownership therein. Otherwise also, the appellant
cannot have better right and title than respondent no.1.
7. The Appellant's right, if any, flows from her matrimonial relationship
with Respondent No. 3. The husband admittedly resides separately and has
initiated matrimonial proceedings. The statutory obligation to maintain
the Appellant and minor child rests primarily upon the husband. Such
derivative residence rights cannot extinguish or permanently curtail the
statutory and proprietary protections granted to senior citizens under a
special enactment. 8. The availability of alternate accommodation,
particularly where the Respondents have expressed willingness to
facilitate possession, demonstrates that the Appellant is not rendered
homeless. The right under the DV Act is a right to secure residence, not
necessarily a right to insist upon residence in a specific property
belonging exclusively to in-laws.
9. The Court is mindful of the minor child's medical condition. Stability
and continuity are important considerations. However, child w_elfare
considerations cannot, in the present statutory framework, permanently
negate the lawful rights of senior citizens. The obligation of arranging
suitable accommodation conducive to the child's needs lies primarily with
the parents.
10. The Impugned Order does not disclose indifference to welfare
considerations; rather, it proceeds on the premise that alternate
accommodation is available. The appellate court does not find perversity
or non-application of mind warranting interference.”
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

14. Insofar as the factual findings are concerned, they are concurrent
findings of two authorities. They do not suffer from any infirmity so as to
warrant intereference by this Court.
15. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner with respect to her rights under the DV Act and the needs of the
child are concerned, the Court finds that the Supreme Court in the case of S.
Vanitha has held that rights of the daughter in law under the DV Act and
those of the senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act ought to be
balanced.
“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
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

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.”
[Emphasis supplied]
16. So long as the senior citizens are ready to offer reasonable
accommodation, there should not be any justification for insistence of
continued occupation of their house by the petitioner who has been found to
have meted ill treatment.
17. In the instant case, directing continued occupation of the property in
question by both parties would be against the spirit of the provisions of the
Senior Citizens Act. The competing rights of the senior citizens and the
petitioner-daughter in law can be reasonably balanced, by ensuring that the
petitioner gets adequate alternate accommodation.
18. The Court, thus, directs the senior citizens to continue to make
payment of Rs.30,000/- as rental along with a further sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards other maintenance expenses.
19. Let the respondent-senior citizens deposit the rent amount for six
months directly to the bank account of the petitioner within one month from
today.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36

20. Let the petitioner vacate the property in question within sixty days
from the date of receipt of the advance rent amount.
21. After expiry of six months, respondents shall continue to make the
payment of Rs. 35,000/- on or before the tenth day of each month directly to
the petitoner’s bank account.
22. If the respondents fail to make the payment, the petitioner shall be at
liberty to get her possession restored in the property in question.
23. The respondents are restrained from creating third-party rights over
the property in question, without the permission of the Court.
24. Petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 23, 2026/P
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:19:36