New Delhi:
Emphasising the necessity of safe, dignified and neglect-free living environment for senior citizens, the Delhi High Court has directed the son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren of an 80 year old woman to vacate the house they were living together in after the octogenarian alleged harassment and ill-treatment at their hands.
The petitioner, who invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, said she was the sole and registered owner of the property and neither her son nor the daughter-in-law provided any care to her or her husband.
She claimed that the ongoing marital discord between the son and the daughter-in-law was also a constant source of discomfort and stress, which was like a “slow death”.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in the judgement passed on August 27, noted that the residence of a daughter-in-law is not an indefeasible right, and that this right must be considered in conjunction with the protection afforded to senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, which permits the eviction of occupants causing distress to them.
“The case highlights a recurring social issue where matrimonial discord not only disrupts the lives of the couple involved but significantly affects senior citizens. In this instance, the elderly petitioners, at a vulnerable stage of their lives, faced undue distress due to persistent familial conflicts. This situation reflects the need to address the welfare of senior citizens amidst family disputes,” said the judge.
To facilitate a resolution that respected the rights of the senior citizen as well as the residential rights of the daughter-in-law, the court directed the son to provide financial assistance of Rs 25 thousand to his wife to enable her to secure alternative accommodation for herself.
“Once the financial support commences, Respondents No. 3 to 6 (son, daughter-in-law and two children) shall vacate the subject property and hand over vacant possession to the Petitioner within two months,” ordered the court.
The court observed that the details painted a distressing picture of the petitioner’s daily life, encumbered with neglect, health hazards, and psychological distress.
“Such circumstances compellingly argue for the necessity of ensuring that the living environment of senior citizens is safe, dignified, and free from any form of abuse or neglect, aligning with the core objectives of the Senior Citizens Act,” stated the court.
The described household conditions manifest not just as verbal disputes but extend into the physical environment of the home, contributing to an unhealthy and stress-filled living situation for the senior citizens, it said.
“The allegations of intentional exposure to COVID-19 represent a severe breach of duty of care expected from family members towards the elderly, who are more vulnerable to such health risks. Furthermore, the presence of pets whose maintenance is not properly managed, leading to unsanitary conditions, compounds the disrespect and neglect faced by the elderly couple,” it added.
The court observed that a trial court has already rejected the daughter-in-law’s complaint alleging domestic violence, which was filed after the petitioner sought eviction, and therefore it could not be assumed that the senior citizen’s actions were driven by any ulterior motive.
The court also said there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was acting in collusion with the son to drive the daughter-in-law out of the property.
“Hence, Petitioner must not be deprived from utilizing her entire property and be forced to live with Respondent No. 4, when there are instances to show that there is a rift between the son and the daughter-in-law. There is no justification to allow Respondents No. 3 to 6 to continue occupying the subject property, which is admittedly owned by the Petitioner,” the court concluded.
It nonetheless said there was a need to reconcile the conflicting legal protection given to the daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act and to the elderly under the Senior Citizens Act in order to ensure that justice is tailored to the specific familial and social contexts of the parties involved.
The petitioner had approached the high court against an order of the Divisional Commissioner refusing to grant her any relief.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
