Mrs. Tyagi, the owner of a property in New Delhi, filed for eviction against her son, Mr. Dinesh Tyagi, his wife, Mrs. Babita Tyagi, and their two children, citing a hostile living environment. She claimed persistent harassment and threats from them, which made cohabitation untenable. The situation escalated to the point where she felt compelled to publicly disown her son and daughter-in-law.

In response, Mrs. Babita Tyagi filed a domestic violence complaint against Mrs. Tyagi, which was later dismissed, reinforcing the latter’s position that the allegations lacked substance. However, the District Magistrate dismissed Mrs. Tyagi's eviction application, stating there was insufficient evidence of ill-treatment. This dismissal was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, leading Mrs. Tyagi to seek judicial intervention.

The arguments presented by both parties revealed a complex web of familial and legal issues. Mrs. Tyagi's counsel emphasized her ownership of the property and the neglect she faced from her son and daughter-in-law. The harassment claims included serious allegations, such as intentional exposure to COVID-19, highlighting a severe breach of care expected from family members.

Conversely, the respondents argued that the eviction application was a ploy to harass Mrs. Tyagi and that the property comprised multiple rooms, with the family facing undue hardship. They maintained that Mrs. Tyagi's actions were a response to ongoing marital discord between her son and daughter-in-law.

The legal tension between the two acts became the crux of the matter. The Domestic Violence Act protects women from domestic abuse and ensures their right to reside in a shared household, while the Senior Citizens Act aims to safeguard the welfare of elderly individuals, allowing them to seek eviction from those causing distress.

The Court acknowledged the challenging dynamics at play. It recognized that while Mrs. Tyagi's rights as a senior citizen must be upheld, Mrs. Babita Tyagi's rights under the Domestic Violence Act could not be ignored. The ruling emphasized the need for a harmonious interpretation of both laws to avoid injustice to either party.

The Court found that the earlier domestic violence complaint against Mrs. Tyagi had been dismissed, diminishing the validity of the argument that her eviction application was motivated by a desire to dispossess her daughter-in-law. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the circumstances justified Mrs. Tyagi's request for eviction based on the ongoing distress caused by the living conditions.

To resolve the conflicting claims, the Court issued several directives:

Financial Support: Mr. Dinesh Tyagi was ordered to pay his wife a monthly sum to assist her in finding alternative accommodation.

Vacating the Property: The family was directed to vacate the property within two months, ensuring Mrs. Tyagi could reclaim her home.

Consideration of Further Orders: The directives were made subject to any future decisions regarding maintenance or residence rights made by the relevant court.

This case illustrates the complexities of family law where the rights of senior citizens and domestic violence protections intersect. It emphasizes the need for courts to carefully balance these rights, ensuring that vulnerable individuals, regardless of age or gender, receive fair treatment and protection under the law. As societal norms evolve, such cases will continue to challenge legal interpretations, highlighting the necessity for clear guidelines that prioritize the welfare and dignity of all parties involved.