Removing items from elderly parents’ house is harassment: Delhi HC

The Delhi high court has held that the deliberate removal of items by people from the home of their elderly parents not only constitutes economic harassment but also reflects a lack of respect for the rights and possession of the senior citizens.
“This behaviour (misappropriating household assets) is indicative of economic exploitation, a recognised form of elder abuse under the Senior Citizens Act. The deliberate removal of valuable items from the subject property is not only a form of economic harassment, but also reflects lack of respect for the senior citizens’ rights and possessions,” a bench of justice Sanjeev Narula said in its October 4 order, released on Thursday.
The ruling arose from a plea filed by the son, daughter-in-law, and grandchildren of an elderly woman against a divisional commissioner’s March 31, 2021 order, evicting them from a property in which they were living together. The division commissioner had held that the conduct of the family had created a hostile environment and was negatively affecting the senior citizen’s quality of life.
Earlier, the elderly woman’s daughter-in-law had started residing with her in a shared household — owned by the senior citizen — after 2013. However, tensions emerged, and the senior citizen filed an eviction petition, which was allowed by the district magistrate in 2020.
In their petition before the high court, the elderly woman’s children had contended that the order passed under the Senior Citizens Act failed to establish any substantive grounds for eviction, and lacked application of mind. The plea stated that the daughter-in-law was currently bedridden, was facing severe financial constraints as she had been left without her husband’s support, and thus evicting her from the property would leave her without shelter, violating her fundamental right to residence.
The senior citizen had however contended that the daughter-in-law’s continued presence had become a source of ongoing conflict and suffering. She had also alleged that her children misappropriated household assets, including removal of valuable paintings, jewellery, and other articles.
The court ruled in the elderly woman’s favour by directing the children to hand over the vacant possession of the property to her, saying their mother’s right under the Senior Citizen’s Act could not be ignored, especially when there was a consistent pattern of ill-treatment. However, the court directed her son to pay ₹75,000 as monthly allowance to his wife.
“In the interest of balancing the rights of both parties, it is appropriate to allow Respondent No. 3 (elderly woman) to fully exercise her ownership rights over the subject property. However, to ensure that Petitioner No. 1 (daughter-in-law) is not left without suitable housing, this court directs that she be provided with a monthly allowance sufficient to secure such accommodation,” the order said.
Another aspect of the ruling was the overlap between the protection order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the eviction order passed by the Senior Citizens Act. The daughter-in-law had contended that the eviction order was invalid as it disregarded an order passed by the city court under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in November, 2018, that had restrained the in-laws from dispossessing their daughter-in la-. It went on to add that the eviction order was directly conflicting with the subsisting protection order and thus the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act lacked the jurisdiction to pass the order.
Rejecting the contention, the court held that the jurisdiction of appellate authority under the Senior Citizens Act is not stripped off by virtue of a protection order under the DV Act. Justice Narula opined that the right to shared household under section 17 of the DV Act is not absolute in cases where it conflicts with the rights of senior citizens. “​​While the Petitioner’s (daughter in law) right under the DV Act is acknowledged, it does not supersede the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act when there is evidence of gross ill-treatment. Thus, there is no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act to entertain the request for eviction,” the court maintained.