The Karnataka High Court has held that aged parents deprived of the peaceful enjoyment and occupation of their own home can seek restoration of the property to them from their daughter-in-law under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
“When the aged owners themselves seek restoration of possession on the ground that they have been effectively excluded from their own residence, the claim of shared household cannot operate as an absolute defence to defeat their statutory rights,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said in his order dated June 18.
A shared household is defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as a household where a woman lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with a male person.
The court observed that the Senior Citizens Act is enacted not merely to secure maintenance but also to preserve the dignity, autonomy, security, and independent living of senior citizens in the evening of their lives.
Justice Magadum said, “The right of ownership cannot be reduced to a barren title devoid of possession and enjoyment, nor can senior citizens be relegated to a position where, despite owning a residential house, they are forced to seek refuge elsewhere.”
‘A counterblast to domestic violence proceedings’
Sridevi R approached the high court challenging a tribunal order that concluded she does not have any independent right, title, or interest over the house because it is her mother-in-law’s self-acquired property.
The tribunal order further held that Sridevi’s conduct caused disturbance and nuisance to her in-laws—Changal Rayan, 82, and Anasuya C, 73—in their old age, thereby warranting her eviction from the premises.
Story continues below this ad
Advocate Kanishk Ravindran, appearing for Sridevi, argued that provisions of the Senior Citizens Act do not contemplate eviction proceedings against a daughter-in-law. He further submitted that the in-laws voluntarily left the premises in 2015 to live with their other son because of a matrimonial dispute between Sridevi and her husband.
The counsel further said Sridevi had already initiated proceedings for protection under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and received favourable interim orders in respect of her right of residence in the shared household.
“The proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act have been instituted only as a counterblast to the matrimonial and domestic violence proceedings initiated by the petitioner,” the counsel added.
Rights under Domestic Violence Act not indefeasible
Justice Magadum opined that the Domestic Violence Act is equally a beneficial law intended to secure protection to women from domestic violence and to safeguard their right of residence in a shared household. However, the right conferred under the Act is essentially a right of protection against unlawful dispossession.
Story continues below this ad
“Such right cannot, in every circumstance, mature into an indefeasible right to continue in occupation of premises belonging exclusively to aged parents-in-law, particularly when the continued occupation itself results in deprivation of the senior citizens’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their own property,” Justice Magadum ruled.
Emphasising that both the Domestic Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act are required to be balanced on the facts of each case.
“Where the property exclusively belongs to senior citizens and the material on record demonstrates that the senior citizens themselves have been compelled to leave their own house and seek shelter elsewhere owing to hostile circumstances, the statutory protection available under the Senior Citizens Act must necessarily receive primacy,” Justice Magadum said.
The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the 2025 case Rajeshwar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar, wherein it held that the remedy available under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be rendered illusory merely because the occupant happens to be a daughter-in-law claiming residence rights under the Domestic Violence Act.
Story continues below this ad
The court noted that the daughter-in-law is gainfully employed. She is not shown to be destitute, financially dependent, or rendered shelterless in the absence of occupation of the property, while the senior citizens have been compelled to live away from their own house and seek refuge with their second son, it added.
Only by virtue of matrimonial relationship
The court said, “The property exclusively belongs to respondent No.3 (Anasuya) and the petitioner’s occupation thereof is only by virtue of her matrimonial relationship and permissive residence. Therefore, when the aged owners themselves seek restoration of possession on the ground that they have been effectively excluded from their own residence. The claim of a shared household cannot operate as an absolute defence to defeat their statutory rights.”
Rejecting Sridevi’s petition, the court said her in-laws’ right to reside peacefully in, possess, and enjoy their property must prevail over the daughter-in-law’s limited and qualified right of residence.
The high court also directed Sridevi to vacate the premises within eight weeks.
