Few conflicts in family litigation are as acute as the one between a woman's right to reside in the shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the right of elderly parents-in-law to peaceful possession of their own home under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In Shivani Verma v. Vedanta Verma, decided on 5 September 2026, the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, was asked to resolve exactly that collision — and answered it with harmonious construction rather than by letting one statute obliterate the other.
The setting
The appellant approached the Court of Session under Section 29 of the DV Act after the trial Magistrate, despite recording a prima facie case of domestic violence and granting protection orders, declined to grant her interim protection of residence in the shared household. The Magistrate had leaned on an eviction order obtained under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — the statute that permits summary eviction from a senior citizen\'s premises where the elderly are being harassed or their property misused.
The appeal therefore presented the classic triangle of modern Delhi family litigation: a woman asserting her statutory right to reside under Section 17 of the DV Act; senior citizens asserting their right to peace in their own home; and a Magistrate\'s order caught between the two special statutes.
What the Sessions Court held
The appellate court allowed the appeal, but in carefully measured terms. The operative direction was that the appellant cannot be dispossessed from the shared household until her right of residence is secured by way of alternate accommodation in terms of Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act.
Why the reasoning matters beyond this case
Eviction petitions by parents-in-law under the Senior Citizens Act have become a standard counter-move in matrimonial disputes across Delhi. The maintenance tribunals under that Act move quickly, and an eviction order in hand is often deployed before the Magistrate hearing the DV application as a complete answer to any residence claim. This decision — consistent with the direction of travel in the superior courts — confirms that the sequence does not work so mechanically. The eviction order addresses the senior citizens\' possession; it does not adjudicate, and cannot extinguish, the daughter-in-law\'s distinct statutory protection.
Equally, the decision is no charter for indefinite occupation. The court expressly recognised that the residence right must be balanced against the senior citizens\' entitlement to peace, and that alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) is the lawful exit route. The respondent who wants the shared household vacated must be ready to secure comparable accommodation or pay rent in lieu; the woman who resists every alternative risks the court finding her insistence unreasonable.
Practice pointers for both sides
For the aggrieved person: plead Section 17 and Section 19(1)(f) specifically, and place material on the standard of accommodation enjoyed in the shared household — that becomes the benchmark for any alternative.
For respondents: an eviction order under the 2007 Act is a shield for possession, not a sword against residence rights. Come to court with a concrete alternate-accommodation proposal; vague offers rarely persuade.
Interim orders under Section 23 declining residence protection are appealable under Section 29 within thirty days — the appellate court can and does recalibrate the balance.
Where severe discord makes cohabitation impracticable, a negotiated alternate-accommodation arrangement recorded before the court is usually better than a contested eviction fight for either side.
Proceedings under both statutes frequently run in parallel with maintenance, custody and criminal proceedings. An order obtained in one forum should always be placed on record in the others, because findings on possession, ownership and conduct travel between them.
The judgment reflects a settled trend in Delhi: the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act are to be worked together, with Section 19(1)(f) as the hinge. This article describes the decision for general information; it is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a daughter-in-law be evicted from the shared household under the Senior Citizens Act?
An eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act does not automatically override the right of residence under Section 17 of the DV Act. Courts increasingly require that before a woman with a subsisting DV claim is dispossessed, her residence must be secured — typically by alternate accommodation or rent in lieu of it under Section 19(1)(f). The two statutes are read together, not in opposition.
Is the right of residence under Section 17 DV Act a property right?
No. It is a protective, statutory right to reside in the shared household irrespective of whether the woman owns any share in it. It does not create ownership or a permanent interest. Because it is protective and not proprietary, it can be satisfied by suitable alternate accommodation where continued joint living has become impracticable.
What is Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act?
It empowers the Magistrate, while passing a residence order, to direct the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as she enjoyed in the shared household, or to pay rent for such accommodation, where the circumstances so require. It is the usual bridge between the woman's protection and the in-laws' possession.
Does an appeal lie against interim residence orders in DV cases?
Yes. Section 29 of the DV Act provides an appeal to the Court of Session against orders of the Magistrate, and interim orders under Section 23 — including refusals of interim residence protection — are routinely tested in such appeals within thirty days.