Senior Citizens Act | Eviction Order Cannot Nullify Right to Shared Household Under DV Act: Delhi High Court

“Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman's right to a ‘shared household’ under Section 17 of the PWDV Act, 2005.” — In a seminal ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Sachin Datta, has stayed the eviction of a daughter-in-law, reinforcing that summary eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to defeat a woman’s statutory right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act.

Summary Eviction vs. Statutory Residence Rights

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Rashmi @ Pooja Bahry challenging an eviction order dated April 5, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate (West) and upheld by the Divisional Commissioner. The authorities, exercising powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, had ordered the petitioner to vacate the premises occupied by her in-laws.

The petitioner contended that she faced an "imminent threat of dispossession" despite having a subsisting right to reside in the "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The core legal issue before the High Court was whether the summary procedure for eviction under the Senior Citizens Act could override the specific protections granted to women under the PWDV Act.

“The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonise, not excise.”

Justice Datta placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner (2021). The Court observed that while the Senior Citizens Act contains a non-obstante clause (giving it overriding effect), it cannot be interpreted to mechanically strip a woman of her rights under the PWDV Act.

The Court reiterated that both statutes are special legislations aimed at protecting vulnerable groups—senior citizens and women facing domestic violence. Consequently, the authorities must construe the provisions harmoniously. The Court noted that allowing the Senior Citizens Act to override the PWDV Act in all situations would defeat the legislative intent of protecting women from domestic violence and ensuring they are not rendered homeless.

The Subsisting Domestic Violence Order

A crucial aspect of the case was the existence of a prior judicial order. The petitioner pointed out that on August 18, 2022, a Magistrate acting under the PWDV Act had specifically restrained the respondents from dispossessing her. The Magistrate had observed that due to mutual instigation and conflict, it was not fit to oust the daughter-in-law from the matrimonial home.

“Rights in law can translate to rights in life, only if there is an equitable ease in obtaining their realisation.”

The High Court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's submission that the impugned eviction orders failed to appreciate the scope and import of this existing protection. The executive authorities (DM and Divisional Commissioner) had seemingly overlooked the judicial finding that the petitioner had a right to remain in the shared household.

Status Quo and Future Implications

Recognizing the complex interplay between the two special acts, the High Court issued notice to the respondents. Justice Datta held that since an interim order protecting the petitioner was already subsisting during the appeal, the interest of justice required the preservation of the property's status.

The Court directed that status quo regarding title and possession be maintained until the next date of hearing, effectively halting the eviction. The matter has been listed for further arguments on February 3, 2026. This order serves as a critical reminder to Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act that they must mould reliefs to accommodate competing claims under the DV Act rather than ordering mechanical evictions.

Date of Decision: 31/12/2025