Senior Citizens Can Evict Daughters-in-Law to Reclaim Self-Acquired Homes : Karnataka HC

Karnataka: In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court ruled that elderly property owners who are being deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of their self-acquired homes have the legal right to evict their daughters-in-law under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

The court clarified that this right holds even if the daughter-in-law claims residency protections under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to prioritizing the dignity and security of senior citizens in their later years.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by Sridevi R, who sought to challenge a previous tribunal order. The tribunal had originally mandated her eviction from a property owned by her mother-in-law, Anasuya C, after finding that Sridevi had no independent legal title to the residence. Furthermore, the tribunal noted that Sridevi’s conduct had caused significant disturbance and nuisance to her elderly in-laws, making their continued stay in the house untenable.

The dispute involved 73-year-old Anasuya C and 82-year-old Changal Rayan, who are the rightful owners of the self-acquired property. Evidence presented in court revealed that the couple had been effectively forced to leave their own home in 2015 due to hostile living conditions. For several years, they were compelled to seek refuge and live with their other son, while their own property remained occupied by the petitioner.

During the proceedings, Sridevi’s counsel, Kanishk Ravindran, argued that the Senior Citizens Act does not explicitly provide for the eviction of a daughter-in-law. The defense maintained that the in-laws had relocated voluntarily in 2015 following a matrimonial dispute between Sridevi and her husband. They further contended that the eviction effort was a retaliatory measure, noting that Sridevi had already obtained interim residence orders under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

However, the court emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act was established not just for basic financial maintenance, but to guarantee the autonomy, security, and dignity of older individuals. Justice Magadum observed that senior citizens should not be forced to find shelter elsewhere while their own properties are reduced to "barren titles" devoid of actual possession and enjoyment. The judge stated that the law must protect the elderly from being relegated to a position of displacement despite owning a home.

While acknowledging that the Domestic Violence Act is a beneficial law intended to protect women from unlawful dispossession, the court clarified that this protection is not absolute. The ruling stated that a "shared household" claim cannot serve as an indefeasible right to occupy a property owned exclusively by parents-in-law, especially when such occupation results in the deprivation of the owners' own rights. The court defined a "shared household" as a place where a woman lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, but noted this status does not override the fundamental property rights of the elderly.

The court found that Sridevi’s occupation of the house was purely permissive, stemming solely from her matrimonial relationship rather than any ownership interest. Additionally, the court highlighted that Sridevi is gainfully employed and is not destitute or lacking alternative shelter. This stood in sharp contrast to the situation of her elderly in-laws, who were effectively excluded from their own residence despite their advanced age.

To support this balancing of rights, the Karnataka High Court cited a 2025 Supreme Court precedent from the case Rajeshwar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar. That ruling established that the protections offered under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be neutralized simply because the occupant is a daughter-in-law claiming residency under domestic violence legislation. The High Court affirmed that while both acts are important, the statutory protection for senior citizens must receive primacy when they are forced out of their own homes by hostile circumstances.

Ultimately, the court held that the right of the elderly to reside peacefully in and enjoy their property must prevail over a daughter-in-law’s limited and qualified right of residence. Rejecting the petition, the court ordered Sridevi to vacate the premises within eight weeks. This timeframe was provided to allow the 82-year-old and 73-year-old owners to finally return to and reclaim their home.

Case title: Sridevi R v. Anasuya C and Others