New Delhi: Upholding the powers of a district magistrate to order eviction of a son, daughter or legal heir from a senior citizen’s property in cases of non-maintenance and ill-treatment, Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by a woman challenging her eviction under Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia in a recent order noted that the eviction provisions under the rules are within the framework of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the provisions derive their authority from the parent Act, which requires state govts to chalk out a comprehensive action plan for protection of the life and property of senior citizens.The observations came while dismissing a plea filed by a daughter-in-law challenging an order of the divisional commissioner directing her to vacate the property of her mother-in-law, a senior citizen.HC rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the 2009 rules and also the argument that an eviction application could not be filed unless the senior citizen had also sought maintenance. The court pointed out that a senior citizen can approach the DM for eviction where the requirements of non-maintenance and ill-treatment are established. The bench said that on account of marital discord between the petitioner and her husband, if the mother-in-law is “otherwise entitled to live peacefully and not haunted by the matrimonial discord… in our opinion, the order of eviction… has rightly been passed”.The petitioner earlier moved court under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking a residence order in respect of the shared household. Her mother-in-law subsequently initiated proceedings under the 2007 Act for her eviction, citing harassment.HC clarified that the protection available to a woman under Domestic Violence Act cannot simply be overridden through the summary procedure under Senior Citizens Act, but it found merit in the conclusion of the state authorities in the current case that the petitioner was working as a postgraduate teacher, had a substantial income and a separate house at Bahadurgarh.The court observed that the petitioner’s right to reside in the shared household was not absolute and had to be considered alongside the senior citizen’s right to live a normal and peaceful life.
