Ratika Kalra v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. The petitioner’s grievance arises out of order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate (West), New Delhi (Maintenance Tribunal), whereby, the petitioner and her family members have been directed to vacate the property bearing no. 42, Pragati Apartments, Club Road, Paschim Vihar, West Delhi-110063.

2. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondents no. 3 and 4senior citizens. The said respondents had filed an application under Rule 22(3) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (Rules), framed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, KUMAR KAURAV 2007 (Senior Citizens Act), seeking eviction of the petitioner and her family members from the property in question. The Maintenance Tribunal, vide order dated 19.05.2025, had allowed the said application.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority cum Divisional Commissioner (Appellate Authority). The said appeal has been dismissed, finding no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal.

4. The primary ground of challenge is that, the authorities did not harmonise the rights of the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) with the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act as per the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors.[1] It is contended that the petitioner has been residing in the property-in-question, immediately post her marriage, and therefore, is her matrimonial home.

5. According to learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, the authorities have also not given due consideration to interim order dated 06.08.2022 passed in a pending civil suit between the parties, whereby, the respondent-senior citizens have been directed not to create any third-party interests in the property in question. It is contended that, in proceedings under the DV Act, the concerned Mahila Court has also restrained the respondent-senior citizens from dispossessing the petitioner without following due process of law.

6. Further, according to him, the authoritities have also failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has a minor child who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Intellectual Disability and has also been certified to have fifty per cent permanent disability by the competent authority. It is submitted that the needs of the child are intricately connected to the petitioner’s right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act. The child’s schooling, specialized medical treatment and therapy, are structured around their present place of residence. Therefore, it is her case that the impugned orders, therefore, prejudicially affect the minor child, who is also the grandchild of respondents no. 3 and 4.

7. The submissions are strongly opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who contends that, without prejudice, the respondents are ready and willing to offer suitable accommodation for a reasonable amount towards rent. It is her contention that an independent house has already been purchased at Sector 70A, Gurugram, by the petitioner in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent no.5 at the expenses of respondent nos.[3] and 5.

8. It is also submitted that from 01.06.2022 to 12.04.2026, the petitioner has stayed in the present place of residence only for 260 days, that too, only at night. Further, she contends that the parental house of the petitioner is also situated close to the property in question, and the child attends school, medical treatment, etc. therefrom. She, therefore, submits that on the pretext of welfare of the child, the petitioner is trying to prevent the respondentsenior citizens from peacefully enjoying their property, without any justification.

9. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

10. As per the Rule 22(3)(1) of the Rules, a senior citizen is entitled for eviction from his property on account of his non-maintenance and ill treatment. Admittedlty, the property in question is owned by respondent NO. 3. Before the Maintenance Tribunal, respondent-senior citizens had alleged that the petitioner and her family members who were residing along with her, were meting out ill-treatment to the former. The Maintenance Tribunal has found merit in these allegations

11. The order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal would indicate that the SDM, Punjabi Bagh, was directed to submit a report, who, vide report dated 16.06.2022, found that the property is owned by respondent no.3.

12. In the instant case, the allegations of ill treatment have been made against the petitioner. The Maintenance Tribunal in paragraph nos.74 to 78 of the order has taken note of ill treatment which was meted out to the senior citizen. Those are the findings of fact which do not require to be interfered with in the absence of their being palpably illegal or wholly perverse. The same are extracted as under:

75. It is mentioned here that the statement of the applicant was recorded during the field enquiry by the official of the Sub Division, Punjabi Bagh wherein they stated that the respondents have harassed and abused them on several occasions and sometimes respondent no. 1 and her family members have even raised hand on them, used to reside at the subject forcefully. Due to these reasons, they have filed the present complaint before this authority.