The Delhi High Court has set aside the eviction of a woman from her matrimonial home, holding that a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in a shared household cannot be defeated through proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act. The court said senior citizens’ rights and women’s residence rights must be harmoniously considered.Justice Amit Mahajan was dealing with a plea of a woman challenging the divisional commissioner’s order, which had upheld her eviction from the matrimonial household.“Respondent is a senior citizen, and her right to live peacefully and with dignity in her property is required to be protected. At the same time, as discussed above, the protection available under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to deprive a daughter-in-law of the right of residence in premises which she claims to have occupied as her matrimonial/shared household,” the court observed on September 28.The judge noted that the parties are involved in several legal disputes, including a civil suit filed by the minor son seeking injunction/declaration/partition, a divorce case, guardianship proceedings, domestic violence proceedings, and an FIR alleging dowry demand and cruelty.Daughter-in-law challenged her evictionThe case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the woman and her in-laws over her right to reside in the property. The couple got married in December 2021 and live on the property with their minor son. Justice Amit Mahajan said the protection of the dwelling is particularly relevant considering that the residence of a minor child is also involved.The woman’s father-in-law had died in 2018 without leaving behind a valid will, after which the husband and his brother executed a registered relinquishment deed in 2019, giving up their shares in favour of their mother, who is the petitioner’s mother-in-law.The mother-in-law later sought the eviction of her son and daughter-in-law under the Senior Citizens Act. The district magistrate ordered their eviction in March 2025, holding that the mother-in-law was the property’s owner. The daughter-in-law’s appeal was dismissed by the divisional commissioner in September 2025.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Rajasthan High Court directs government to list steps to regulate 3,000 madrasas in stateThe divisional commissioner dismissed the plea on the grounds that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the husband is bound to provide alternative residence, not the mother-in-law. The commissioner also considered the mother-in-law’s advanced age, illness (stage-4 cancer), and the acrimonious atmosphere due to the pending litigation between the parties.The daughter-in-law then approached the high court, arguing that the property was her matrimonial/shared household and that her right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act could not be defeated simply through a relinquishment deed. She also disputed the deed and claimed that the property was ancestral and that her minor son had a right in it.Residence of minor child should be protected: OrderThe high court said that the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), must be harmoniously interpreted. One legal right cannot automatically override the other.It underscored that a relinquishment deed executed between family members, where the husband/sons transferred their share to the mother, especially when its validity and effect are disputed and pending in civil court, cannot on its own extinguish a woman’s legal right of residence.Story continues below this adThe court highlighted that the protection of the dwelling is particularly relevant where the residence of a minor child is also involved.Also Read | 10901911Setting aside the daughter-in-law’s eviction, the judge clarified that the court was not determining property title, ownership, or the ultimate validity of the relinquishment deed; those disputed questions remain open to be determined in appropriate civil and matrimonial proceedings before competent forums.