Daughter-in-law's shared household right under DV Act is provided through suitable alternate accommodation, not permanent property transfer.

The petitioners, senior citizens aged 76 and 73, are the absolute owners of a property in Sarita Vihar.

Alleging ill-treatment by their daughter-in-law (Respondent No. 4) and son (Respondent No. 7), they obtained an eviction order from the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("Senior Citizens Act").

On appeal, the Divisional Commissioner upheld the findings of harassment but modified the order, directing the petitioners to provide "permanent alternate accommodation" to Respondent No. 4 and her children, and to share half the property's rental income with her.

The petitioners challenged this modification, arguing that providing permanent accommodation is legally onerous and outside the scope of the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act.

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

The Senior Citizens Act cannot nullify a woman's right to a "shared household" under Section 17 of the DV Act, requiring a harmonious construction of both statutes.

If a relationship is acrimonious, parents can seek eviction, but the husband’s obligation to provide shelter continues.

The right to residence is protective, not a property right, and can be satisfied by suitable alternate accommodation.

The Court observed that the Divisional Commissioner correctly identified the relationship as acrimonious, making cohabitation impossible.

The Court found that the direction to provide "permanent" accommodation lacked statutory backing, as neither the Senior Citizens Act nor the DV Act recognizes a right to permanent housing, only the right to a "shared household" or suitable alternative.

The Court reasoned that while the petitioners are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property as absolute owners, the daughter-in-law’s right to shelter must be balanced.

It determined that the primary liability to maintain the wife rests with the husband (Respondent No. 7), and the in-laws' burden should be limited to providing financial means for a shared household rather than a permanent asset.

The Court ordered the petitioners to pay ₹25,000 for a shared household and ₹5,000 for maintenance (total ₹30,000/month) to Respondent No. 4; Upon payment of four months' advance, Respondents No. 4–6 must vacate the premises within 45 days; Failure to pay entitles the Respondents to seek restoration of possession; The petitioners are restrained from creating third-party rights over the property, except for leasing it to generate rent.