Two protective statutes meet head-on whenever a daughter-in-law resists eviction from her in-laws' house: her right to reside in the shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the senior citizen's right to peace and protection in their own property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In Roopa Sharma v. Smt. Santosh Sharma, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3350/2020, decided on 26 October 2026, Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the daughter-in-law's challenge to a Maintenance Tribunal's eviction order, holding that she had shown no proprietary right in the mother-in-law's self-acquired house and that the tribunal's power to evict in aid of a senior citizen's protection was no longer open to doubt.
The dispute
The mother-in-law, about 61 and suffering from spinal ailments, owned a house in Jodhpur purchased by registered sale deed in 1998 — before the petitioner\'s marriage into the family. In February 2020 the Maintenance Tribunal ordered the daughter-in-law and her husband to vacate within a month, and directed the husband to pay his mother ₹4,000 per month. The daughter-in-law obtained a stay from the High Court within weeks, and the matter remained in limbo for six years. She argued collusion between mother and son to dispossess her, claimed the house was a shared household bought by her late father-in-law, and pointed to its separate entrances.
How the court resolved the statutory collision
The daughter-in-law\'s frame
Shared household under the 2005 Act; residence right protected by the Supreme Court\'s shared-household jurisprudence; eviction a device in a matrimonial dispute.
The court\'s frame
Self-acquired property of a senior citizen; no proprietary right shown by the petitioner; harmonious reading of the two Acts; a matrimonial dispute with the husband cannot by itself deny the mother statutory protection in her own home.
Three strands in the reasoning
- Ownership first: the petitioner established no independent proprietary right. Residence after marriage is not ownership, and the claim that the father-in-law had bought the house remained unproved against the registered deed.
- Harmony, not hierarchy: the court acknowledged the residence protections of the 2005 Act but held that a woman\'s protection does not require a senior citizen to remain in an unsafe or detrimental environment. Each case turns on its facts — the eviction power exists, and its exercise is discretionary.
- Recent Supreme Court confirmation: the court relied on the Supreme Court\'s 2026 clarification that the tribunal may order eviction to ensure the senior citizen\'s maintenance and protection, quoting that eviction is "an incident of enforcement of right to maintenance and protection."
What this means for both sides of these disputes
For senior citizens, the path that succeeded here is instructive: a documented, self-acquired title; a tribunal application framed around protection rather than the family quarrel; and patience through the writ challenge. For daughters-in-law, the judgment underlines where the real security lies — the DV Act remedies against the husband, including a residence order or alternative accommodation under Section 19, survive an eviction under the 2007 Act and should be pursued in parallel rather than held back as a defence. An eviction order against the couple does not decide maintenance, stridhan or custody questions, all of which continue before their own forums.
Practice note: Six years of interim stay dissolved in a single hearing once the title documents and the Supreme Court\'s 2026 ruling were placed side by side. Interim protection in writ proceedings is not an asset to be banked on; parties resisting eviction should use the stay period to secure their position under the DV Act, not merely to prolong occupation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Maintenance Tribunal order eviction from a senior citizen's house?
Yes. The Supreme Court has confirmed that eviction can be ordered under the 2007 Act where it is necessary for the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen — the High Court here quoted the principle that eviction is an incident of the enforcement of that right. The power is discretionary and fact-dependent, not automatic.
Does the DV Act's shared household right defeat such an eviction?
Not automatically. The statutes are read harmoniously: the woman's residence right is real, but it does not compel a senior citizen to continue housing her where the environment has become detrimental. Courts examine ownership, the source of the property, the conduct of parties and the availability of alternative remedies.
Did the daughter-in-law lose her DV Act remedies?
No. The court expressly left her free to pursue independent remedies, including under the 2005 Act, before the competent forum — for a residence order, alternative accommodation or monetary relief against her husband.
Does living in the matrimonial home create ownership rights?
No. Long residence after marriage confers no proprietary interest. The house here was purchased by the mother-in-law under a registered sale deed in 1998, before the marriage, and that self-acquired character was decisive.