Senior Citizens Act — Shared Household v. Peaceful Residence · 13 May 2026
RT v. GNCTD: Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction of a Daughter-in-Law From Her In-Laws' Property to Protect Their Right to Peaceful Residence
High Court of Delhi · 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 492
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
After her husband died in February 2020, a widow and her adult son continued living in her in-laws' house, and disputes later arose over family properties, LIC policies and other financial assets. The in-laws approached the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging ill-treatment and seeking their eviction. The District Magistrate initially ordered them to vacate only the ground floor, but the Divisional Commissioner, on appeal, ordered eviction from the entire property after finding relations had become so acrimonious that continued cohabitation was untenable. The widow argued before the High Court that the property was a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that she also had claims to certain ancestral-business and insurance funds.
The Delhi High Court (Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav) dismissed her petition, holding that Senior Citizens Act proceedings are summary in nature and cannot be turned into a forum for adjudicating disputed claims over ownership, inheritance or financial entitlements. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, it held that a daughter-in-law's residence right must be balanced against the senior citizens' right to live peacefully in their own property — and, noting that the widow was a government schoolteacher earning over ₹1 lakh a month with grown children and alternative accommodation already available to her, found no financial dependency that would justify overriding the in-laws' claim. It directed her and her son to vacate within 45 days.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.