In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court against an order dated 07-07-2022 by the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal filed by respondent 2 against an order dated 10-02-2021 by the District Magistrate, rejecting the application made by respondent 2 under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (2009 Rules), a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Apart from challenging the impugned order, the petitioner has also sought a declaration that Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv) of the 2009 Rules were ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner was the daughter-in-law of respondent 2 and had been married, as per Hindu rites and customs, to respondent no.2’s son on 22-04-1996. Two children were born of the wedlock. Matrimonial discord arose, and on 13-08-2018, the petitioner filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband and respondent no.2, seeking, among other prayers, a residence order under Section 19. That application remained pending before the Mahila Court at Saket.
On 23-10-2018, respondent 2 instituted proceedings seeking the petitioner’s eviction from the shared household under Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate inquired and reported that nothing could be established about any harassment and that the matter was a mutual family dispute. The District Magistrate rejected the application on 10-02-2021. Respondent 2 appealed under Rule 22(4), and the Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal on 07-07-2022, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over peaceful possession, and directing the District Magistrate and the DCP to ensure compliance and secure respondent 2’s life and property.
The petitioner argued that the State government, while framing the Rules, had exceeded its rule making power vested in it under Section 32 of the Senior Citizens Act, by vesting a power of eviction that is not contemplated in the parent statute. It was also averred that the impugned rule was violative of constitutional provisions as it acted against women’s interest and violated the protection available to them under the DV Act.
Taking note of the scheme of the Senior Citizens Act, the Court noticed that by virtue of Section 3, the provisions of Senior Citizens Act have an overriding effect. It was noted that Rule 22 (3)(1) provided for making of an application by a senior citizen/parent before the DM for eviction of his son or daughter or legal heir from his property of any kind. The Court stated that the State had empowered and imposed a duty on the District Magistrate under the impugned rules to evict the son or daughter or legal heir from his property due to non-maintenance and ill-treatment of senior citizens. Hence, the Court opined that the impugned rule could not be said to be ultra vires.
On merits, the Court noted the Divisional Commissioner’s findings that the petitioner owned a separate house and worked as a Post Graduate Teacher with a substantial income. It was held that her claim to reside in the shared household was not indefeasible and had to be weighed against respondent 2’s right as a senior citizen to live a normal and peaceful life under Section 4(3). Finally, the Court held that eviction proceedings under Rule 22(3)(1) were independent of maintenance proceedings under Sections 4 and 5, so an application could be maintained even without a prayer for maintenance. Hence, the Court opined that the Divisional Commissioner’s order had been correctly passed, requiring no interference and dismissed the writ petition.
