Delhi High Court upholds rule allowing senior citizens to seek eviction of an ill-treating daughter-in-law, despite a pending domestic-violence residence claim

The petitioner, daughter-in-law of respondent no. 2, lived in a ground-floor portion of the property owned by her mother-in-law.

Amid matrimonial discord, the petitioner sought a residence order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”); those proceedings remained pending.

Respondent no. 2 applied under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (“2009 Rules”) for the petitioner’s eviction.

The District Magistrate rejected the application, but the Divisional Commissioner allowed respondent no. 2’s appeal and directed the petitioner to vacate.

The petitioner challenged that order and the validity of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv).

1. Whether Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules are ultra vires the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“Senior Citizens Act”) or unconstitutional

2. Whether the eviction order could stand despite the petitioner’s claimed right to reside in a shared household under the DV Act and the pendency of her residence-order proceedings

3. Whether Rule 22(3)(1) extends to a daughter-in-law and permits eviction proceedings independently of a maintenance claim

Sections 21 and 22 of the Senior Citizens Act require State measures to protect senior citizens’ life and property; Section 22(2) mandates a comprehensive action plan for that protection, while Section 32 authorises rule-making to carry out the Act.

The Court held that these provisions support Rule 22(3)(1), which permits a District Magistrate to consider eviction where a senior citizen is not maintained or is ill-treated.

Section 3 gives the Senior Citizens Act overriding effect, but S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730, requires the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act—including the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17—to be harmoniously construed, with competing claims considered before eviction.

The Court also relied on Ravi Kant Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (4 August 2026), Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669, and related Supreme Court authorities recognising that eviction may be ordered where necessary and expedient to protect a senior citizen.

Shadab Khairi v. State and Darshna v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi support a liberal interpretation of Rule 22(3)(1) that can encompass a daughter-in-law.

Proceedings for eviction under the Rules are distinct from maintenance proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Senior Citizens Act.

The Court found that Section 22’s mandate to protect senior citizens’ life and property, read with the rule-making power in Section 32, authorised the State to provide an eviction procedure; Rule 22(3)(1) was therefore not ultra vires.

Applying S. Vanitha, the Court considered the competing claims rather than treating the petitioner’s pending DV Act proceedings as an automatic bar to eviction.

It relied on the Divisional Commissioner’s findings that the petitioner was employed as a postgraduate teacher and had a separate residence at Bahadurgarh, and concluded that her claim to occupy the shared household did not outweigh respondent no. 2’s interest in living peacefully.

The Court further held that the Rule could extend to the petitioner as a daughter-in-law and that an eviction application did not depend on a separate claim for maintenance.

The writ petition was dismissed; pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.