The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be pressed into service to evict an estranged daughter-in-law who possesses a right to reside in the shared household, affirming that the statute's purpose is to uphold maintenance obligations, not to adjudicate matrimonial or property disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Anuradha Bansal, a senior citizen, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking eviction of respondent No. 3, her daughter-in-law, from a residential property invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ("the Act of 2007"). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 20.04.2026, following which the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
Key Facts
- The appellant is the absolute owner of the residential property in question, which devolved in equal share upon her and both her sons upon the demise of her husband
- Respondent No. 4 is the appellant's younger son; respondent No. 3 is his wife (the appellant's daughter-in-law)
- There is marital discord between respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4, who are estranged
- Respondent No. 3 has separately filed an application under the Act of 2007, which remains pending
- The appellant's elder son (respondent No. 4's brother) also resides in the same property, but the appellant chose not to initiate any action against him
- The appellant claimed that her younger son (respondent No. 4) had ceased to pay rent and vacated the premises, after which respondent No. 3 started harassing her
- The appellant contended that the private respondents could reside in the premises only with her permission and did not possess an independent or pre-existing right in the immovable property
Procedural History
- Date not specified: Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court seeking eviction of respondent No. 3 under the Act of 2007
- 20.04.2026: Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the application was preferred at the behest of respondent No. 4 to settle personal scores with his estranged wife, and that the Act cannot be used to evict a daughter-in-law with a right to reside in the shared household
- Date not specified: Appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA-2464-2026) challenging the Single Judge's order
- 31.08.2026: Judgment reserved by the Division Bench
- 07.09.2026: Judgment pronounced by the Division Bench
- 08.09.2026: Judgment uploaded
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the Single Judge's order dated 20.04.2026 and a direction for eviction of respondent No. 3 from the residential property under the Act of 2007.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can be invoked by a senior citizen to evict an estranged daughter-in-law from a residential property when the daughter-in-law possesses a right to reside in the shared household under law, and where the proceedings appear to be driven by the senior citizen's son to settle matrimonial scores.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sachit Sehijpal, contended that the appellant is the absolute owner of the residential property. After her husband's death, her two sons (including respondent No. 4) resided in the property and paid rent to her as reflected in income tax returns. He submitted that when respondent No. 4 ceased to pay rent and vacated the premises, his wife (respondent No. 3) started harassing the appellant. Counsel argued that the private respondents could reside in the premises only with the appellant's permission and did not possess an independent or pre-existing right in the immovable property. He urged that the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that the provisions of the Act of 2007 had been invoked at the behest of respondent No. 4 to settle personal scores with his estranged wife.
For the Respondent
Mr. Deepak Vashisth, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, supported the Single Judge's finding that the proceedings were initiated at the behest of respondent No. 4. The respondent's position aligned with the Single Judge's observation that the plea regarding non-payment of rent by respondent No. 4 was not set up before the Maintenance Tribunal nor substantiated before the writ Court, and that the underlying objective of the Act of 2007 is to uphold the obligation of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens, not to adjudicate matrimonial or property disputes.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur, examined the record and the Single Judge's findings. The Court noted that it cannot be disputed that there is marital discord between respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 has separately filed an application under the Act of 2007, which is pending.
The Court upheld the Single Judge's categorical finding that the application had been preferred by the appellant before the Maintenance Tribunal to set up a defense which her son (respondent No. 4) intends to take in the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 under the Act of 2007. The Court observed that the present proceedings have been initiated by the appellant at the behest of her son, respondent No. 4. This finding was arrived at particularly after noticing that the plea regarding non-payment of rent by respondent No. 4 was not set up before the Maintenance Tribunal nor substantiated before the writ Court.
The Court emphasized that the underlying objective of the Act of 2007 is to uphold the obligation of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens, but the provisions of the statute cannot be pressed into service for the adjudication of matrimonial or property disputes. They cannot be used to evict an estranged daughter-in-law, who otherwise possesses a right to reside in the shared household as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, Urban District and others, (2021) 15 SCC 730.
The Court further noted that the property in question had devolved in equal share upon the appellant as well as both her sons upon the demise of the appellant's husband. The appellant chose to proceed only against her younger son and his wife without initiating any action against her elder son. This circumstance further reinforced the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge as to the real purpose behind the proceedings.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court did not find any error, much less any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in an intra-court appeal.
The Verdict
The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA-2464-2026) as lacking merit. The Court upheld the Single Judge's order dated 20.04.2026 dismissing the writ petition. Although the appeal deserved to be dismissed with heavy costs, the Court refrained from imposing costs noticing the advanced age of the appellant. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
The Act of 2007 Is Not a Tool for Matrimonial Warfare
The judgment draws a clear line: the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 exists to secure maintenance for senior citizens, not to serve as a proxy weapon in matrimonial disputes. Practitioners must be alert to situations where a senior citizen's petition appears to be filed at the behest of a son or relative to circumvent the daughter-in-law's statutory right to reside in the shared household. Courts will examine the bona fides of the petitioner and the timing of the proceedings.
Right to Reside in Shared Household Prevails Over Eviction Under the Act
Following S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, a daughter-in-law's right to reside in the shared household is recognized and cannot be overridden by invoking the Act of 2007. When a daughter-in-law has a pending application under the same Act, a parallel eviction petition by the mother-in-law will be scrutinized for ulterior motives. The Supreme Court's precedent acts as a shield against using senior citizen legislation to displace a woman from her matrimonial home.
Selective Targeting of One Child Strengthens Inference of Mala Fides
The appellant's decision to proceed only against the younger son and his wife, while leaving the elder son (who also inherited an equal share and resided in the property) untouched, was treated as a telling circumstance. Practitioners should note that selective enforcement against one branch of the family, especially when aligned with a matrimonial dispute, will weigh heavily against the petitioner's credibility. The Court will infer that the real purpose is to settle personal scores rather than secure maintenance.
- Practical takeaway: Before filing an eviction application under the Act of 2007 on behalf of a senior citizen, verify that the petition is not a collateral attack on a daughter-in-law's residence rights
- Practical takeaway: If a daughter-in-law has a pending maintenance application, an eviction petition by the mother-in-law will face heightened scrutiny for mala fides
- Practical takeaway: Ensure all children/heirs with equal property rights are treated consistently; selective action undermines the petition's bona fides
