Daughter-in-Law Cannot Be Evicted Under Senior Citizens Act as She Is Neither ‘Child’ Nor ‘Relative’; Eviction Orders Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Neha Hasija v. Appellate Authority and Others
Date of Judgment: 15 October 2026
Citation: CWP No. 6291 of 2020
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Kirti Singh
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a daughter-in-law cannot be subjected to summary eviction proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, as she does not fall within the definition of either “children” under Section 2(a) or “relative” under Section 2(g) of the Act. Mere ownership of the property by a senior citizen does not confer jurisdiction upon the authorities to order eviction beyond the statutory framework. The Court clarified that senior citizens remain entitled to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil court or other forum in accordance with law.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the eviction orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Authority directing her and her husband to vacate a residential property owned by her father-in-law. She contended that the premises constituted her matrimonial home and that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to evict a daughter-in-law under the Senior Citizens Act.
Relying upon the Division Bench judgment in Babu Lal Sharma v. Sushila Devi and Others (LPA-701-2018), the High Court held that the summary eviction remedy under the 2007 Act cannot be extended to persons excluded from its statutory definitions.
Referring to S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, (2021) 15 SCC 730, and Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, the Court emphasised that the rights of senior citizens must be harmonised with the residential protections available to women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Neither property ownership nor a claim of residence automatically overrides the competing lawful rights of the parties.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the eviction orders insofar as they concerned the petitioner. The existing residential arrangement permitting the daughter-in-law to occupy the first floor and her in-laws to occupy the ground floor was continued until modification by a competent forum. The father-in-law was granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies, including proceedings concerning alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) of the Domestic Violence Act. The eviction order against the petitioner’s husband remained undisturbed.