🎯 SENIOR CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO PEACEFUL LIVING VS DAUGHTER IN-LAW'S RIGHT TO RESIDENCE🏠
- Subhodeep Chattopadhyay
- Oct 31, 2025
- 6 min read
🏠 Senior Citizens' Right to Peaceful Living vs Daughter-in-Law's Right to Residence: Delhi High Court Delivers Landmark Judgment
Understanding the Balance Between Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Rights of Elderly Property Owners
📋 Case Overview
In a significant judgment delivered on October 30, 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed a crucial question that affects thousands of Indian families: Can senior citizens evict their daughter-in-law from their own property while ensuring her statutory rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) are protected?
Case Details:
Case Number: RFA(OS) 64/2025
Appellant: Manju Arora (Daughter-in-Law)
Respondents: Neelam Arora & Another (Parents-in-Law/Senior Citizens)
Judges: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Property: GB 25, Shivaji Enclave, Tagore Garden, New Delhi
🔍 Background: When Family Harmony Breaks Down
The Family Situation
The case involves elderly parents-in-law who are the absolute owners of a duplex property, purchased from their own funds. Their daughter-in-law, Manju Arora, had been living in the property for over 24 years following her marriage to their son, Sachin Arora.
The Breaking Point 🔥
What started as a harmonious family living arrangement deteriorated dramatically:
The matrimonial relationship between the son and daughter-in-law became severely acrimonious
More than 25 litigations were pending between various family members
Multiple police complaints were filed
The atmosphere in the house became "toxic and unliveable"
The senior citizens' health, peace, and dignity were significantly affected
Property Layout 🏢
The suit property comprises:
Basement, ground floor, and first floor (forming a duplex unit)
Second floor let out to a tenant
Common areas, single kitchen, and shared staircase
Internal connectivity making separate living arrangements impractical
⚖️ Legal Battle: The Arguments
💼 Daughter-in-Law's Arguments
Manju Arora contended:
"Shared Household" Protection: The property constituted her "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act, giving her an indefeasible right to reside there
24 Years of Residence: Her prolonged stay (24 years) established the property as her matrimonial home
Forum Shopping Allegation: The parents-in-law had previously failed to evict her through:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
PWDV Act proceedings before Metropolitan Magistrate
This civil suit was a third attempt to achieve the same goal
Inadequate Alternate Accommodation: The offered accommodation (Rs. 65,000/- per month rent) was not comparable to the four-bedroom duplex, which would command Rs. 1,30,000/- monthly rent
Partition Possible: The basement or other portions could be adapted for separate living, avoiding eviction
🛡️ Senior Citizens' Arguments
Neelam Arora & Another contended:
Absolute Ownership: They were undisputed owners who purchased the property from their own funds
Right to Peaceful Living: As senior citizens, they had a constitutional right under Article 21 to live peacefully with dignity in their own home
Impractical Cohabitation: With common kitchen, single entry, and shared spaces, separate living was impossible
Generous Offer Made: They voluntarily offered alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) of PWDV Act, including:
Monthly rent up to Rs. 65,000/-
Security deposit
Brokerage charges
Maintenance charges
Electricity and water bills
Right of Occupation, Not Ownership: The PWDV Act grants residence rights, not proprietary rights
🎯 The Court's Key Findings
1. Understanding "Shared Household" Rights ✅
The Court clarified a critical misconception:
"The right of residence conferred upon an aggrieved woman under the PWDV Act is a right of occupation, not ownership, and is not indefeasible."
The shared household concept aims to:
✅ Protect women from destitution
✅ Prevent homelessness
✅ Ensure safety and stability
❌ NOT create permanent proprietary rights
❌ NOT guarantee parity of luxury
2. Balancing Competing Rights ⚖️
The Court emphasized balancing:
Women's Rights:
Statutory protection under PWDV Act
Right to safe and dignified residence
Protection from domestic violence
VS
Senior Citizens' Rights:
Constitutional right to peaceful living (Article 21)
Rights as property owners
Protection under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
3. When Cohabitation Becomes Impossible 🚫
The Court recognized that with:
25+ pending litigations
Severe matrimonial discord
Shared common spaces (kitchen, entry, staircase)
Health and dignity of elderly at stake
Continued cohabitation was "wholly impractical and inconsistent with peaceful and dignified living."
4. Adequacy of Alternate Accommodation 🏘️
The Court held that the PWDV Act does not require:
❌ Identical size and configuration
❌ Same level of luxury
❌ Permanent residence in the specific property
It requires:
✅ Adequate and safe accommodation
✅ Protection of dignity
✅ Prevention of homelessness
The Court's Modification:
While the trial court ordered a three-bedroom flat, the High Court clarified that a two-bedroom flat would be sufficient because:
The daughter-in-law lives alone
Her adult daughter is settled abroad
One room for her, one for visiting daughter
Monthly rent of Rs. 65,000/- plus all charges is adequate
📜 The Final Order
Directions to Senior Citizens (Respondents):
Provide alternate accommodation within 4 weeks from judgment date
Two-bedroom flat in locality reasonably comparable to suit property
Bear monthly rent up to Rs. 65,000/-
Pay directly:
Security deposit
Maintenance charges
Brokerage
Electricity bills
Water charges
Directions to Daughter-in-Law (Appellant):
Vacate the suit property within 2 weeks after alternate accommodation is offered
Hand over peaceful possession to the senior citizens
Safeguards Built-In 🔒
The trial court judgment included a crucial protection:
If Respondents default on rent payment or breach their undertaking
The Appellant is entitled to return to the suit property
💡 Legal Principles Established
1. PWDV Act Rights Are Not Absolute
The judgment clarifies that Section 17 residence rights under PWDV Act:
Are protective, not possessory
Can be satisfied through alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f)
Must be balanced against competing rights
2. Senior Citizens' Rights Matter
The Court strongly affirmed:
"The right of senior citizens to live peacefully with dignity in their own property is not subordinate to statutory protection under PWDV Act."
3. Practical Test for "Shared Household"
The concept cannot be stretched to mean:
Perpetual occupation irrespective of ownership
Right to specific premises when cohabitation is impossible
Indefeasible entitlement defeating owner's rights
4. Adequacy vs. Parity
Protection under PWDV Act requires:
Adequacy of accommodation ✅
NOT parity of luxury ❌
🎓 Precedents Relied Upon
The judgment extensively relied on:
Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 - Supreme Court three-judge bench decision establishing that residence rights are not indefeasible
Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma (2019) - Delhi High Court decision on balancing rights
Madalsa Sood v. Maunicka Makkar (2023) - Recent Delhi High Court precedent on eviction with alternate accommodation
S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 - On definition of shared household
🌟 Implications for Indian Families
For Women in Matrimonial Disputes:
✅ Right to residence is protected - but may be satisfied through alternate accommodation
✅ Protection from homelessness - ensured through mandatory alternate arrangements
⚠️ Cannot indefinitely occupy in-laws' property when cohabitation becomes impossible
For Senior Citizens:
✅ Right to peaceful living recognized - constitutional protection under Article 21
✅ Can seek eviction - but must provide adequate alternate accommodation
✅ Property ownership rights - balanced with daughter-in-law's statutory protections
📊 Key Statistics from the Case
Aspect | Details |
Duration of Residence | 24 years |
Pending Litigations | 25+ cases between family members |
Alternate Accommodation Rent | Rs. 65,000/- per month |
Claimed Market Rent | Rs. 1,30,000/- per month |
Timeline to Provide Accommodation | 4 weeks |
Timeline to Vacate | 2 weeks after offer |
Property Type | 4-bedroom duplex (basement, ground, first floor) |
🔑 Key Takeaways
PWDV Act is protective, not proprietary - It prevents homelessness, not creates ownership
Alternate accommodation is valid solution - When cohabitation becomes impossible due to severe discord
Senior citizens' rights are equally important - Their right to peaceful living in their own property carries constitutional weight
Practical impossibility matters - Courts will consider physical layout and shared spaces
Good faith efforts are recognized - Property owners who voluntarily offer fair alternate accommodation will be supported
25 litigations demonstrate breakdown - Extreme acrimony justifies separation of households
Adequacy, not luxury - Accommodation must be adequate and dignified, not identical
⚠️ Important Disclaimer
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case has unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing similar issues:
Consult a qualified lawyer specializing in family law
Understand your specific rights under PWDV Act and other applicable laws
Consider mediation before approaching courts
Document everything - all communications, expenses, and arrangements
🤔 Final Thoughts
This landmark judgment strikes a delicate balance between two competing but equally valid rights:
The right of women to be protected from domestic violence and homelessness
The right of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own property
The Court's pragmatic approach recognizes that when family relationships break down irretrievably, forcing cohabitation serves no one's interests. By mandating adequate alternate accommodation, the judgment ensures that protection under the PWDV Act remains meaningful while respecting property rights and dignity of all parties.
As Indian society grapples with changing family structures and increasing nuclear families, this judgment provides important guidance on how courts will balance statutory protections with practical realities.
📅 Case Citation: Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr., RFA(OS) 64/2025, Delhi High Court, decided on October 30, 2025
👨⚖️ Judges: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Have you or someone you know faced similar family property disputes? Understanding your legal rights is the first step toward finding a fair solution. Share this article to spread awareness about these important legal principles.
Comments