The Delhi High Court has ruled that senior citizens cannot be legally compelled to provide a “permanent alternate accommodation” to their daughter-in-law under the law governing maintenance and welfare of parents. The court clarified that while a woman has a right to residence in a shared household, that protection does not translate into a permanent property right.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the judgment while hearing a petition filed by elderly parents seeking modification of an appellate order that had directed them to permanently accommodate their daughter-in-law and grandchildren.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Parmal and his wife, both senior citizens aged 76 and 73, approached the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging harassment and ill-treatment by their son and daughter-in-law.
The District Magistrate had earlier ordered eviction of the daughter-in-law and the son from the property situated in Madanpur Khadar, South Delhi.
Read also:- Unregistered Gift Deed Gives No Ownership Rights: Delhi High Court Rejects Woman’s Property Claim
However, the Divisional Commissioner later modified that order. While upholding the findings regarding ill-treatment of the senior citizens, the appellate authority directed the elderly couple to provide a permanent alternate accommodation of similar size to the daughter-in-law and her two children, one of whom was stated to be a special child.
The senior citizens challenged this direction before the High Court.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioners argued that they were the absolute owners of the property and had a right to peacefully enjoy it. The elderly couple submitted that they were willing to arrange reasonable rental accommodation for the daughter-in-law, but the law did not permit courts to compel them to provide permanent accommodation.
They further contended that the responsibility to maintain the daughter-in-law primarily rested upon her estranged husband.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that the daughter-in-law was caring for two children, including a special child, and had no independent income apart from rent received from the property. It was also argued that the in-laws had earlier agreed before the appellate authority to provide alternate accommodation.
Court’s Observations
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District and Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja while examining the balance between the rights of senior citizens and the residential rights of a daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Kaurav observed that both statutes protect vulnerable groups and therefore courts must harmoniously balance competing interests.
“The senior citizens have the right to live peacefully with dignity. Also, the daughter-in-law too have the right to have roof over her head,” the court noted while discussing the appellate authority’s reasoning.
At the same time, the High Court clarified that neither the Domestic Violence Act nor the Senior Citizens Act recognizes any right to “permanent accommodation.”
The bench observed that the right available to the daughter-in-law is a right to a shared household and suitable residence protection, not a perpetual right over the in-laws’ property.
Court’s Decision
The High Court partly modified the appellate order and directed the petitioners to pay ₹25,000 per month towards shared household accommodation and an additional ₹5,000 towards maintenance. Four months’ advance payment was ordered to be deposited within 45 days.
The daughter-in-law and her children were directed to vacate the property within 45 days from the date of deposit of the advance amount.
The court further ordered that monthly payments of ₹30,000 must continue thereafter, failing which the daughter-in-law would be entitled to seek restoration of possession in the property.
The petitioners were also restrained from creating third-party rights in the property without permission of the court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Parmal & Anr. v. The State & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15440/2024
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: 12 May 2026
