The Delhi High Court recently emphasized the need to balance a woman's right to reside in a shared household under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act against the right of senior citizens to live in peace, particularly when the property belongs to them.

Justice Sanjeev Narula made this observation while hearing an appeal challenging the eviction orders of the Divisional Commissioner in a case involving a senior citizen’s right to reclaim her home.

The case stemmed from eviction proceedings initiated by Vijay Mehta, a senior citizen, and his wife, against their son and daughter-in-law. A trial court had ruled in favor of the senior citizens, allowing them to regain possession of their property. This order was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner. Aggrieved, the daughter-in-law, Pooja Mehta, approached the High Court, assertiang her right to reside in the property under Section 17 of the DV Act, which grants women the right to reside in a shared household.

Advocate Rajiv Bajaj, representing Pooja Mehta, argued that the eviction order conflicted with the protections afforded to women under the DV Act. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner (2021), which stressed that the DV Act and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act must be interpreted harmoniously.

Justice Narula highlighted that while the DV Act provides protection to women, this right is not absolute, especially when it clashes with the rights of senior citizens. In this case, the court noted that the daughter-in-law had created a hostile living environment, negatively impacting the senior citizen’s quality of life.

The court held that when there is evidence of ill-treatment, senior citizens have the right to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act. It also clarified that the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act retains jurisdiction, even when the DV Act is invoked.

Balancing the rights of both parties, the court directed Pooja Mehta’s husband, the son of the senior citizen, to provide her with financial assistance of INR 75,000 per month to secure alternative accommodation. The court also ordered that the couple vacate the property within one month of the first payment, ensuring that the senior citizen can live in peace. The court further stated that if the husband fails to make the payment, the responsibility would fall on Respondent No. 3, presumably a family member or another party involved.

The court left open the possibility for the Mahila Court to pass further orders on additional maintenance if necessary.

Case Title: Pooja Mehta & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2024:DHC:7873).