Eviction under Senior Citizens Act cannot override a woman’s right to shared household under PWDV Act.

The Petitioner (daughter-in-law) married the son of Respondent No. 2 (mother-in-law) in 2006

Following matrimonial disputes and the filing of a POCSO FIR against the husband in October 2015, the husband transferred the subject property to Respondent No. 2 via GPA and Agreement to Sell on 19.11.2015

The Petitioner obtained a protection order under the DV Act on 15.11.2016

Respondent No. 2 subsequently sought eviction of the Petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("Senior Citizens Act").

The District Magistrate dismissed the eviction plea on 05.03.2018, finding no evidence of ill-treatment and characterizing it as a family dispute

However, the Divisional Commissioner (Appellate Court) reversed this on 18.11.2019, ordering the Petitioner’s eviction to ensure the senior citizen's peace

The Petitioner challenged this eviction in the High Court.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District*, which held that the Senior Citizens Act and the PWDV Act must be harmonized; a woman’s right to reside in a shared household cannot be nullified by the summary machinery of the Senior Citizens Act

It further applied *Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi*, establishing that for Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act to apply, the transfer of property must be subject to the express condition that the transferee provide basic amenities/physical needs

The court also noted that under Rule 22, eviction requires proof of "non-maintenance" or "ill-treatment"

The Court observed that the subject property was transferred to the mother-in-law only after matrimonial litigation began, suggesting a strategy to defeat the Petitioner's right to a shared household

The Court found that Respondent No. 2 was not residing in the property and failed to establish that the initial purchase or subsequent transfer was tied to a legal condition of providing her maintenance under Section 23(1)

Following the mandate in *S. Vanitha*, the Court reasoned that summary eviction under the Senior Citizens Act cannot override a subsisting protection order under the DV Act

The Court criticized the Divisional Commissioner for ignoring the SDM’s inquiry report, which found no evidence of ill-treatment and noted that the mother-in-law actually resided elsewhere

The Court held that the Petitioner’s right to a shared household under Section 17 of the PWDV Act cannot be nullified by the Senior Citizens Act

It directed that the competing rights of the parties be determined by the pending PWDV Act proceedings, noting that if Respondent No. 2 wishes to pursue eviction, she may offer alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate