Balancing Senior Citizen property rights and Domestic Violence Act residence rights through provision of alternative rental maintenance.

The Appellant (daughter-in-law) challenged an order directing her to vacate a property owned by Respondent No. 1 (senior citizen/mother-in-law).

The Appellant had previously secured an interim protection order from a Mahila Court under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act in 2021.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("Senior Citizens Act").

The Divisional Commissioner ordered the Appellant to vacate, subject to Respondent No. 1 providing alternate accommodation or rent.

A Single Judge modified this, directing the Appellant to vacate within two months and Respondent No. 1 to pay ₹15,000 monthly rent, noting that Respondent No. 1 claimed to own no other property.

The Appellant appealed, alleging Respondent No. 1 mala fide transferred other properties to relatives to avoid providing physical alternate accommodation.

The Court applied the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner (2020) and the Delhi High Court decision in Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha (2019), which establish that while a senior citizen has a right to evict from self-acquired property, courts must balance this against the "shared household" rights of a daughter-in-law by moulding reliefs—such as directing alternative accommodation or financial compensation—to protect both proprietary and residential rights.

The Court reasoned that the competing claims between the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act require a balancing act.

It observed that the Single Judge correctly applied the law by granting monthly rent of ₹15,000 as a feasible alternative to physical accommodation.

Regarding the Appellant’s claim of mala fide property transfers, the Court noted that the Mahila Court’s protective injunction was limited strictly to the "Property" in question and did not restrict Respondent No. 1 from alienating other owned assets.

Furthermore, since the Divisional Commissioner’s original order (which the Appellant did not challenge) provided for rent as a secondary remedy, the sale of other properties did not prejudice the Appellant as her right to shelter survived through the monetary compensation.

The Court found the monthly rent of ₹15,000 sufficient and consistent with previous interim arrangements.

The High Court upheld the Impugned Order, dismissed the appeal, and directed the Appellant to vacate the property as ordered, with Respondent No. 1 paying ₹15,000 per month as rent from the date of vacation. No order as to costs was made.