Right To Shared Household Under DV Act Doesn't Supersede Rights Under Senior Citizens Act Upon Gross Ill-Treatment Of Senior Citizen: Delhi HC

The Court stated that the concerned authority can issue an eviction order against the daughter-in-law of the senior citizen, despite a subsisting protection order under the DV Act.

Background

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula was considering the petitioners' challenge to the Divisional Commissioner's (Appellate Authority) order upholding the District Magistrate's eviction.

The respondent no. 3 is a senior citizen and a widow. She and her husband (respondent no. 2) lived with their son (petitioner no. 2) and daughter-in-law (petitioner no. 1) in the same household. However, discord and daily tensions arose between the petitioners and respondents.

A Magistrate issued an interim order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), where the respondents were restrained from dispossessing petitioner no. 1 from the shared household.

Meanwhile, the eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioners was allowed by the District Magistrate. In an appeal, the Divisional Commissioner upheld the eviction order.

Jurisdiction to pass eviction order

The petitioners' contended that the eviction order was invalid as it disregarded and conflicted with the DV order. It was contended that in view of the subsisting DV order, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to pass eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act.

The Court noted that the Senior Citizens Act and DV Act must be interpreted harmoniously, “balancing the daughter-in-law's right to reside in the shared household against the senior citizen's right to a tranquil life.”

It observed that the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act is not affected by a protection order under the DV Act.

The Court noted that the right to reside at a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is not absolute, particularly when such right conflicts with the rights of senior citizens.

Here, it noted that as the petitioners' conduct created a hostile environment for the senior citizen and affected her quality of life, the right under DV Act could not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act. It held that the Divisional Commissioner had jurisdiction to evict the petitioners'.

“The fact that the Respondent No. 3 is a senior citizen, now widowed without support, is a pertinent consideration for this Court to ensure that her rights to security and peace are upheld. While the Petitioner's right under the DV Act is acknowledged, it does not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act when there is evidence of gross ill-treatment. Thus, there is no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act to entertain the request for eviction.”

Right to autonomy of senior citizen to decide living arrangements

The Court took note of the gravity of allegations by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioners.

It noted that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 alleged that the petitioners engaged in misappropriating household assets, including the removal of valuable paintings and jewellery. It stated that these acts were indicative of 'economic exploitation', a recognized form of elder abuse under the Senior Citizens Act.

It also noted that the respondents alleged that they were confined to a single room in the property with more than six rooms by the petitioners. It observed that this amounted to mental and emotional harassment and was a violation of the senior citizen's right to live in their own property without being subjected to undue interference or control.

The petitioners' contended that the authorities should have explored coexistence arrangements between them and respondents. However, the Court opined that such assertion for coexistence arrangements “ignores the senior citizen's right to decide how she wishes to live.” It remarked that concerning the gravity of the allegations and the evident breakdown of relations between the parties, eviction was the most appropriate remedy.

The petitioners also argued that respondent no. 3 is dependent on them for care as she was unwell.

Noting that the Act recognizes the right to autonomy in deciding one's living arrangements, the Court stated that the senior citizen cannot be forced into a living arrangement against their will.

It noted that respondent no. 3 cannot be compelled to live with the petitioners merely because she may be unwell.

“The right to autonomy in deciding one's living arrangements, especially in their advanced years, is recognized under the Senior Citizens Act. The mere fact that Respondent No. 3 may be physically unwell, does not compel her to accept the presence of those who, in her perception, have contributed to her distress. This Court cannot impose on the senior citizen a forced living arrangement against her will, especially when it has been found to be a source of her suffering.”

The petitioner no. 1 also claimed that she had health problems and faced severe financial constraints. She contended that evicting her would leave her without shelter, thus violating her fundamental right to residence.

The Court however observed that the Senior Citizens Act does not grant automatic protection to adult children and their spouses solely based on their financial or health status. It stated that senior citizens' right to a peaceful and secure living environment needs to be taken into consideration. It noted that the financial difficulties alleged by the petitioners' cannot be a legal basis to override the protections under the Act.

The Court held that as the petitioners' actions amounted to ill-treatment against respondent no. 3 under the Senior Citizens Act, the eviction order was a 'necessary and appropriate response'.

It thus upheld the order of the Divisional Commissioner.

It also directed petitioner no. 2 to pay Rs. 75000 per month to his wife/petitioner no.1, to protect her residential right under the DV Act.

Case title: Pooja Mehta & Ors. vs. Government of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 4643/2021 & CM APPL. 14297/2021, CM APPL. 28005/2021, CM APPL. 30704/2023 & CM APPL. 43610/2024)