Pending Domestic Violence Act proceedings must be considered before eviction under the Senior Citizens Act.

The petitioners sought protection concerning House No. 21, Molarband Village, Badarpur, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The District Magistrate directed the private respondents to vacate the property on 6 June 2025.

On appeal, the Divisional Commissioner set aside that order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, principally because the District Magistrate had not adequately considered the respondents’ competing residence claim and pending proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The petitioners challenged the remand order, arguing that the pending Domestic Violence Act proceedings did not justify setting aside the eviction order and that the Divisional Commissioner lacked power to remand the matter.

Whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in setting aside the District Magistrate’s eviction order and remanding the matter for consideration of the pending Domestic Violence Act proceedings.

Whether the Divisional Commissioner, as appellate authority, had power to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

The Court held that the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, must be harmoniously considered with a claimed right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Pending proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are a relevant factor to consider before deciding an eviction application under the Senior Citizens Act.

The Court also held that an appellate authority’s power to set aside an order includes the power to remand the matter where appropriate.

The District Magistrate’s order directed eviction without due consideration of the pending Domestic Violence Act proceedings between the parties.

Because those proceedings and the competing residence claim were relevant to the eviction decision, the Divisional Commissioner properly set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Court rejected the challenge to the remand power, reasoning that the authority’s power to set aside an order encompassed the power to remand where the matter warranted it.

It directed the District Magistrate to endeavour to pass a final order within four weeks, considering all relevant aspects, including the pending Domestic Violence Act proceedings.

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the rival claims and directed the competent authority to decide independently.