Removing items from elderly parents’ home is harassment: Delhi HC | Latest News Delhi

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the deliberate removal of items by people from their elderly parents’ homes not only constitutes economic harassment but also reflects a lack of respect for the rights and property of senior citizens.

“This behavior (misappropriation of household assets) is indicative of economic exploitation, a recognized form of elder abuse under the Senior Citizens Act. Deliberate removal of valuables from the subject properties is not only a form of economic harassment but also reflects a lack of respect for the rights and property of senior citizens,” a bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula said in his October 4 order released on 4 October. Thursday.

The judgment arose out of a plea filed by the son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren of an elderly woman against a divisional commissioner’s order dated March 31, 2021, evicting them from a property in which they were living together. The divisional commissioner was of the view that the family’s behavior had created a hostile environment and adversely affected the senior citizen’s quality of life.

Previously, the elderly woman’s daughter-in-law had started living with her in a shared household – owned by the elderly woman – after 2013. However, tensions arose and the senior citizen filed an application for deportation, which was granted by the district magistrate. in 2020.

In their petition before the High Court, the elderly woman’s children had argued that the order issued under the Senior Citizens Act did not establish substantive grounds for deportation and that there had been a lack of understanding. The plea stated that the daughter-in-law was currently bedridden and facing severe financial constraints as she was left without the support of her husband, and evicting her from the premises would leave her without shelter, in violation of her fundamental right would mean staying.

However, the senior citizen had argued that the daughter-in-law’s continued presence had become a source of constant conflict and suffering. She had also alleged that her children embezzled household assets, including removing valuable paintings, jewelry and other items.

The court ruled in favor of the elderly woman by ordering the children to transfer vacant possession of the property to her. In doing so, she said their mother’s rights under the Senior Citizen’s Act could not be ignored, especially if there was a consistent pattern of abuse. However, the court ordered her son to pay ₹75,000 as monthly allowance to his wife.

“In the interest of balancing the rights of both parties, it is appropriate to allow Respondent No. 3 (elderly woman) to fully exercise her ownership rights over the property in question. However, to ensure that petitioner No. 1 (daughter-in-law) is not left without adequate accommodation, this court directs that she be provided a monthly allowance sufficient to ensure such accommodation,” the order said.

Another aspect of the ruling was the overlap between the protection order issued under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the eviction order issued under the Senior Citizens Act. The daughter-in-law had argued that the eviction notice was invalid because it ignored an order passed by the city court in November 2018 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), which had restrained the in-laws. of dispossessing their daughter in La-. It added that the deportation order was in direct conflict with the existing protection order and thus authorities had no jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act to issue the order.

The court rejected the contention and held that the appellate authority’s jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act is not deprived by a protective order under the DV Act. Justice Narula opined that the right to shared household under Article 17 of the DV Act is not absolute in cases where it conflicts with the rights of senior citizens. “Although the right of the petitioner (daughter-in-law) under the DV Act is recognized, it does not override the right of the senior citizen to seek relief under the Senior Citizens Act where there is evidence of gross abuse. “There is therefore no jurisdictional bar on the authorities under the Senior Citizens Act from entertaining the deportation application,” the court said.