WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 1 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Suchismita Pati … Petitioner. -VERSUS- State of Orissa & Others … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Behera, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. (For the Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2) Mr. S.K. Dash, Senior Adv. (For Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 2 Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 20.05.2026 JUDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— 1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the final order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for MWPSC Act, 2007 (Opp. Party No.2). 2. The factual backgrounds of this Writ Petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, she (petitioner-Suchismita Pati) is the daughter-in-law (son’s wife) of Opp. Party Nos.3 (Smt. Bidyarani Das) and Opp. Party No.4 (Sri Abhimanyu Das). The Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner. The mother- in-law (Opp. Party No.3) and father-in-law (Opp. Party No.4) of the petitioner are the senior citizens. WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 3 The Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 approached the Sub- Collector, Bhubaneswar-cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for MWPSC Act, 2007 (Opp. Party No.2) by filing Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 being the petitioners against their daughter-in-law Suchisimita Pati and her father arraying them as Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 along with IIC, Infocity Police Station and D.C.P, Bhubaneswar as Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 in that Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 praying for the protection of their lives and properties from their daughter-in-law Suchismita Pati and her father in order to allow them to live in peace, security and dignity stating in their petition that, they have two sons and two daughters and their sons and daughters including the husband of the petitioner are married and they are living separately from them with their respective families. The father-in-law of the petitioner i.e. Abhimanyu Das is a retired Government Employee and a pension holder. They (Bidyarani Das and Abhimanyu Das) are old and their present age is 72 years and 81 years respectively. The mother-in-law WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 4 of the petitioner i.e. Bidyarani Das has a two storied building i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli, at Patia under Infocity Police Station inside Bhubaneswar and she (Bidyarani Das) and her husband (Abhimanyu Das) are staying in the 1st floor of that building and they had let out the ground floor of the said building to a tenant on monthly rent for their livelihood from the rent. The husband of the petitioner i.e. Sudip Kumar Das is staying at Germany and he is working there. Their daughter- in-law i.e. petitioner as well as the wife of their son Sudip Kumar Das is working as a H.R. Professional at Honda Motors, Bhubaneswar, at Cuttack Road and she is staying in her father’s house at Kanan Vihar, Bhubaneswar. In order to torture and harass them (Bidyarani Das & Abhimanyu Das) on dated 03.11.2023, the petitioner Suchismita Pati forcibly occupied to the ground floor of R/O.51 Aryapalli, Patia of her mother-in-law (Bidyarani Das) driving the tenant out from the same and put the said ground floor under lock and key and as such, the petitioner kept the ground floor of R/O-51 Aryapalli, Patia under lock and key, though, she (petitioner-Suchismita WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 5 Pati) is staying in her father’s house at Kanan Bihar, Bhubaneswar. So, without getting any way, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner-Suchismita Pati i.e. Bidyarani Das and Abhimanyu Das being the old wife and husband as well as senior citizens approached the Opp. Party No.2 by filing Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 against their daughter-in-law Suchismita Pati and her father arraying them as Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 including the IIC, Infocity Police Station and D.C.P. Bhubaneswar praying for the protection of their lives and properties in order to allow them to live in peace, security and dignity and to direct their daughter-in-law Suchismita Pati (Opp. Party No.1 in that Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023) to vacate the ground floor of their building (R/0-51, Aryapalli, At-Patia) along with other reliefs, to which, they (Senior Citizens) are entitled for as per the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules thereof. 3. Having been noticed from the Opp. Party No.2 in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023, the Opp. Party No.1 (petitioner in this Writ Petition i.e. Suchismita Pati) and her father WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 6 challenged the same denying the aforesaid allegations alleged by the senior citizens against them, wherein their daughter- in-law Suchismita Pati claimed her right of residence in the ground floor of R/O-51 Aryapalli at Patia as their daughter-in- law of the senior citizens stating that, she has incurred huge expenditures for the renovation of the said ground floor of R/O-51 Aryapalli, at Patia and she being the daughter-in-law of the petitioners in Registration Misc. Case No.16/2023 has her legal right to reside in the said ground floor of R/O-51 Aryapalli, at Patia. For which, she cannot be evicted/therefrom. 4. The further plea of the daughter-in-law (Suchismita Pati) was that, she has already resigned from her job in order to take care of her minor son and at times, she resides at her father’s house at Kanan Bihar, Bhubaneswar only in order to avoid the disturbances created by the petitioners with her, as her husband is staying at Germany, but she always resides in the ground floor of R/O-51 Aryapalli, at-Patia. As she has the right to reside in the ground floor of R/O-51, Aryapalli, Patia, for which, no order of eviction from the said ground floor WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 7 against her can be passed. For which, the Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 filed by her in-laws against her is liable to be dismissed. 5. As per Order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 by the Opp. Party No.2, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar was directed to visit the building in question i.e. R/O-51 Aryapalli, at-Patia in order to submit a report relating to the use of that building and accordingly, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar visited the said building and submitted report before the Opp. Party No.2 on dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-G) in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 stating that, in the first floor of the said building, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner i.e. Bidyarani Das and Abhimanyu Das are staying and the ground floor of the said building has been occupied by their daughter-in-law Suchismita Pati and she (Suchismita Pati) has kept the ground floor under lock and key and she is residing in her father’s house at Kanan Bihar. WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 8 As per the documents, Bidyarani Das is the exclusive owner of the said house building i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli, At- Patia. 6. After hearing from both the sides and taking all the materials into account, the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar-cum- Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for MWPSC Act, 2007 i.e. Opp. Party No.2 passed the final order in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 on dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) and directed to the Opp. Party No.1 (Suchismita Pati) of that Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 (petitioner in this Writ Petition) to vacate the ground floor of R/O- 51, Aryapalli at Patia within 15 days from the date of said order and also directed her to handover the key of that ground floor to her mother-in-law Bidyarani Das. 7. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 by the Opp. Party No.2 of this Writ Petition against the Opp. Party No.1 of that Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023, she (Opp. Party No.1-Suchismita Pati) challenged the same by filing this Writ Petition being the petitioner WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 9 against her Mother-in-Law and Father-in-Law i.e. Bidyarani Das and Abhimanyu Das arraying the State and Sub- Collector, Bhubaneswar-cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for MWPSC Act, 2007 as Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 praying for quashing the said impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed against her by the Opp. Party No.2 on the ground that, she has the right of residence in the ground floor of R/O-51, Aryapalli, Patia as the daughter-in-law of Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4. 8. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2. 9. In order to assail the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 by the Opp. Party No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions: I. Smt. S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Others (Apex Court Judgment). WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 10 II. Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja (Apex Court Judgment). 10. On the contrary, in support of the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023, the learned Senior Counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 relied upon the following decisions: I. Solidaire India Limited Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Limited & Others reported in AIR 2001 (SC) 958. II. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Others Vs. B. Gurappa Naidu & Others decided on 30.04.2026 in Civil Appeal Nos.1388 and 1354 of 2013. III. Rajeswar Prasad Roy Vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 418. IV. Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Others decided in Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024. V. Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo Vs. Babaji Charan Sahoo & Another decided in WP(C) No.23193 of 2025 (Orissa High Court). VI. Smt. Sony @ Sonia Patil Vs. The Assistant Commissioner decided in Criminal Petition No.5479 of 2020 in the High Court of Karantaka of Bengaluru. VII. CRL.M.C.1797/2020, CRL.M.A.12592/2020 decided on 21.10.2024 (Delhi High Court). VIII. Sh.Aditya Gupta Vs. Sh.Narendra Gupta & Others decided in CS (OS) 528/2019 & I.A No.14315 of 2019. WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 11 11. During the course of hearing of this Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner-daughter-in-law contended that, when an interim protection order has already been passed on dated 20.04.2025 in D.V. Case No.118/2025 by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in favour of the petitioner (daughter-in-law) under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) 2005 preventing the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 from removing her (petitioner/daughter-in-law) from the ground floor of R/0-51, Aryapalli, At-Patia, then, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the ratio of the decisions between S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District reported in 2021 (15) SCC 730 & Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja reported in 2021 (1) SCC 414, the impugned order of eviction passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 on dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) by the Opp. Party No.2 cannot be sustainable under law and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. “The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation/statute and the said statute has been WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 12 drafted/enacted for the welfare and benefit of the senior citizens in order to protect them (senior citizens) from oppressions and tortures of their children and relatives. Beneficial statutes like The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules thereof must receive liberal construction inconsonance with objects to be served by it. Courts & Tribunals should adopt purpose oriented approach. It is the duty of the Courts and Tribunals to discern the intention of the legislature while interpreting the Act 2007 and rules thereof. Therefore, the beneficial statutes like the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 should be given purposive construction, which should be in the line of the object of the legislation. The Tribunals and Courts can exercise their powers to pass orders for eviction of a child or a relative from the property of the senior citizens, in order to allow them (senior citizens) to live in peace with security and dignity.” 13. The nature and manner of interpretation to the beneficial statutes like The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by the Courts and Tribunals has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: (A) In a case between Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board Vs. Fancy Food reported in (1995) 4 SCC 341 that, Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a purpose-oriented approach. (B) In the cases between Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corporation reported in (2009) 9 SCC 61, Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 13 (2008) 9 SCC 527 that, the Beneficial Act should receive a liberal construction to promote its objects. (C) In a case between Bharat Singh Vs. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre reported in (1986) 2 SCC 614 that, literal construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation has to be avoided. It is the Court's duty to discern the intention of the legislature in making the law. Once such an intention is ascertained, the statute should receive a purposeful or functional interpretation. (D) In a case between Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia reported in (2015) 10 SCC 161 that, While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the statute was designed to remedy should first be identified, and then a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy should be adopted. (E) In a case between X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 9 SCC 433 that, the interpretation of the provisions of a beneficial legislation must be in line with a purposive construction, keeping in mind the legislative purpose. The beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to take two views. (F) In a case between Urmila Dixit Vrs Sunil Sharan Dixit and others reported in 2025 (3) Civil LJ 341 (SC) that, The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules thereof are the beneficial statutes. The beneficial statutes must receive liberal construction inconsonance with the objects to be served by it. Court or Tribunal should adopt purpose oriented approach. Literal construction be avoided. It is the duty of the Court to discern the intention of legislature while WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 14 enacting it. Beneficial statute should be given purposive construction, which should be in line with its object. (Para Nos.8 & 11) Statement of objects, reasons and preamble of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 shows that, it is indented towards more effective maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, it is, as such beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, Court is bound to advance social justice to the senior citizens, when such case comes before it. 14. In this matter at hand, it is the undisputed case of the parties that, the building in question i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli, at Patia is in the name of the mother-in-law of the petitioner i.e. in the name of the Opp. Party No.3 (Bidyarani Das) and she (Bidyarani Das) is the owner of the said building i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli, Patia. That building i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli, at Patia is the exclusive property of the mother-in-law of the petitioner i.e. Bidyarani Das, in which the daughter-in-law i.e. petitioner-Suchismita Pati has no interest. As per the observations made in the impugned order vide Annexure-1, the Opp. Party No.2 has observed speficially that, the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the petitioner i.e. Bidyarani Das and Abhimanyu Das both are very old WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 15 senior citizens and they are staying in the first floor of the building i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli, at- Patia, but their daughter- in-law Suchismita Pati (petitioner in this Writ Petition) has kept that ground floor under lock and key and she is staying at her father’s house at Kanan Bihar, Bhubaneswar. Her husband is staying at Germany and he is working there. The law relating to the legal status of the property, which stands exclusively in the name of a female Hindu like the building R/0-51, Aryapalli, at- Patia of the Opp. Party No.3- Bidyarani Das has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: (A) In a case between Gangamma etc. Vrs. G.Nagarathnamma and others reported in 2009 (II) CLR (S.C.) 483 in Para No.19 that, when the property, which stands in the name of any female, she is the full owner thereof and on which, the claim of the joint family members out of joint family income cannot stand. (B) (ii) In a case between Marabasappa (dead) by Lrs. and others Vrs. Ningappa (dead) by LRs. and others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 451 that, when the suit properties stands in the name of the Plaintiff’s mother- in-law, mother-in-law becomes the full owner of the property by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 16 15. When undisputedly, the revenue records of the building R/0-51, Aryapalli, at-Patia stands in the name of Bidyarani Das, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner Suchismita Pati, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner daughter-in-law i.e. Suchismita Pati has no interest in the same. 16. Now, the question arises, whether the protection order passed on dated 24.04.2025 in D.V. Case No.118/2025 by the learned JMFC, Bhubaneswar under Section 17 of the PWDV Act, 2005 in favour of the daughter-in-law Suchismita Pati without taking the impugned order passed earlier on dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) by the Opp. Party No.2 (The Tribunal under the MWPSC Act, 2007) against the said daughter-in- law-Suchismita Pati in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 for her eviction from the building R/O-51, Aryapalli, at-Patia can make the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 not sustainable under law? WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 17 17. The husband of the petitioner Suchismita Pati i.e. Sudip Kumar Das is staying at Germany and he is working there. The building i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli at-Patia exclusively belong to Bidyarani Das (mother-in-law of the petitioner). As per law, the petitioner is to be maintained by her husband Sudip Kumar Das. The mother-in-law of the petitioner i.e. Bidyarani Das is not interested to allow her daughter-in-law i.e Suchismita Pati to stay in her buildings i.e. R/0-51, Aryapalli at Patia, as the petitioner is creating disturbances in their peaceful leaving and torturing them (Bidyarani Das and Abhimanyu Das) keeping the ground floor of their building under lock and key preventing them from letting the same for their livelihood and maintenance. 18. The law relating to the rights and duties of a daughter- in-law like the petitioner (Suchismita Pati) in respect of the properties of her in-laws like R/0-51, Aryapalli, at-Patia has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: (A) In a case between Swati Vrs. Shakuntala reported in 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 606 (P & H) that, self-acquired property of mother-in-law— Daughter-in-law has no right of residence in WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 18 self-acquired property of the mother-in-law. Daughter-in-law restrained from entering the house. (B) In a case between Ritesh Khatri Vrs. Shyam Sundar Khatri reported in 2026 (1) CCC 110 (Raj.) that, If, father allows his son/daughter to continue in possession of his house or property or its portion, same does not, by itself, create any legal right in favour of the child to claim that, property as his own, unless property is an ancestral or of Hindu undivided property. Injunction against the children sought for by the father is allowed. (C) In a case between Sachin and another Vrs. Jhabbu Lal and another reported in AIR 2017 (Delhi) 1 (at Para 15) that, where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, then, son whether married or unmarried has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that, the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life. (D) In a case between Suresh Sharma and Anr.. Vrs. Dhanwanti Sharma reported in 2022 (3) Civil Court Cases 079 (Rajasthan) that, property of mother. Eviction of son and daughter-in-law. Mother despite owner of the suit property was ousted out of it by son and daughter-in-law and was meted out with severe ill treatment including mental, social and physical abuse by them. She categorically stated that, living with the petitioners would pose a threat to her life and mental well being. Son and daughter-in-law rightly evicted from the suit property. (Para Nos.15(ii), 16 & 17) WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 19 (E) In a case between Anil Kumar Tiwary Vrs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 664 (Jharkhand) that, Property in question is self-acquired property of senior citizens. Petitioners being son and daughter-in-law are conjointly fighting with senior citizen. Petitioners claiming right to live in suit property, as earning of son is not sufficient to hire separate house and daughter- in-law has right to live in house with full dignity. Allegation of senior citizens is that, petitioners have been subjecting mental torture to him. Thus, he wants to evict both his sons and daughters-inlaw. Petitioners rightly evicted. (paras 3, 6 & 7) (F) In a case between Namdeo S/o Babuji Bangde Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2022 (3) Civil Court Cases 131 (Bombay) that, Eviction of son and daughter-in- law residing in self-acquired property of senior citizens— Safety and security of senior citizens shall be in jeopardy unless son and daughter-in-law are evicted—Son is not expected to brand his aged father a ‘swindler’ or then allege that, aged parents have lost mental balance—Eviction order upheld by observing that, it is absolutely necessary to ensure the physical and emotional health and safety of parents. (Paras 8 & 16) (G) In a case between Krishan & Anr. Vrs. The Deputy Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Panipat & Ors. reported in 2024 (1) Civil Court Cases 477 (P & H) that, property of mother. Eviction of sons. Mother is a 70 years old widow lady and is owner of property. It is irrelevant, whether the petitioners have any house or not, as it is the right of mother, which is to be seen under the Act. In order to ensure WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 20 the protection of mother, eviction of the petitioners is necessary. Eviction order upheld. (Para 7 & 10) (H) In a case between Ravi Kumar Vrs. Deputy Commissionercum-Appellate Tribunal, Jhajjar and others reported in 2024(1) Civ.C.C. 492 (P & H) that, Property of senior citizen—Eviction of son—petitioner son contended that, suit property is ancestral property—However, no document or material on record to show that, property is ancestral in nature, in which, petitioner had any right—More so, petitioner himself raised the plea in written statement that, he had contributed in purchasing the house in question—plea of property being ancestral is contrary to said plea—Mother of petitioner is thus, exclusive owner of suit property—Order of eviction upheld. (Paras 6 & 10) (I) In a case between Deepak Kumar and Anr. Vrs. District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Hoshiarpur and Anr. reported in 2024 (2) Civil Court Cases 747 (P & H) that, property of senior citizen. Eviction of Son. Mother is owner of suit property. She is an old person having no source of income and is mentally and physically weak. Petitioners have misbehaved with mother and did not provide her with basic needs. Mother is not residing in the suit property. All ingredients as required under the Act for grant of relief to senior citizen are fulfilled. Petitioners rightly evicted. (Paras 7, 10 & 11) (J) In a case between Rajeswar Prasad Roy Vrs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civil Court Cases 403 (SC) that, Eviction of son and daughter-in-law from the self-acquired property of senior citizen. Senior citizen 75 years of age. Son and daughter-in-law have not only WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 21 encroached upon self-acquired property, but also threatened senior citizen of false criminal complaints, abusing and creating hurdles in running of Rest House and thereby causing mental and physical harassment to old parents. It shall be a defeat of purpose of the Act, if appellant is not granted the benefit of eviction against respondents. Respondents evicted. (Paras 11 & 12) (K) In a case between Chandramani Samal & Another decided in R.S.A. No.564 of 2023 on dated 19.02.2026 (Orissa High Court) that, the mother-in-law being the exclusive owner of the building, she is not interested to allow her son and daughter-in-law to stay/reside in that building and when she (mother-in-law) sought for their eviction from the building, the order of eviction of the son and daughter-in- law from her building is proper. (L) In a case between S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra reported in (2007) 3 SCC 169 that, the right of residence of daughter-in- law under P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 shall remain exist, so long as the husband has a legal or beneficial interest in the property. (M) In a case between Manju Arora Vs. Neelam Arora reported in 2026 (1) CCC 454 (Delhi) that, While the PWDV Act confers a vital and protective right of residence upon an aggrieved woman, it cannot be construed to extinguish or indefinitely suspend the right of senior citizens to live without distress in their own home. The law must operate in a manner that preserves both safety and serenity, particularly in cases where multiple generations coexist under the same roof, and familial relationships have irretrievably broken down. WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 22 (N) In a case between Sudhir Ranjan Mohapatro and Others Vs. Kameswar Mohapatro & Another decided in WP(C) No.20992 of 2025 on dated 19.02.2026 (Orissa High Court) that, building exclusively belongs to mother-in-law and when the mother in law wants to evict the son and daughter in law from her building alleging allegation of torture by the daughter in law against her and when the tribunal has passed the order for eviction in order to allow the senior citizen to leave with security and dignity for the purpose of achieving the noble object of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and rules thereof, then, the interference with the said eviction order against the son and daughter-in-law is not permissible under law. 19. Here in this matter at hand, when undisputedly, the building i.e. R/O.51, Aryapalli, At-Patia exclusively belong to the Opp. Party No.3 (mother-in-law of the petitioner) and when as per law, the petitioner-Suchismita Pati (daughter-in- law) has no legal right to reside in the exclusively owned building of her mother-in-law i.e. R/O.51, Aryapalli, At-Patia and when as per the Section 2(5) of the PWDV Act, 2005 the said building i.e. R/0-51 Arayapalli, at Patia is not the shared household of the daughter-in-law-Suchismita Pati and when the mother-in-law-Bidyarani Das is not interested to allow the WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 23 petitioner to stay in that building and when the petitioner daughter-in-law (Suchismita Pati) has kept the ground floor of the building of the Opp. Party No.3 under lock and key preventing them (Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4-Senior Citizens) from using the same and torturing them (Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4) indirectly keeping the ground floor of their building under lock and key debarring them to get any rent from the same for their livelihood and when it is the duties of the tribunals under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 like the Opp. Party No.2 to pass orders in order to achieve the intention of the Beneficial Legislation i.e. the Act 2007 and the Rules thereof, by which, the senior citizens shall live in peace with security and dignity and when in order to achieve the said noble object of the legislation, the Opp. Party No.2 has passed the impugned order of eviction vide Annexure-1 against the petitioner-daughter-in-law Suchismita Pati directing her to vacate the ground floor of R/O.-51 Aryapalli, at Patia and to handover the key thereof to her mother-in-law (Opp. Party No.3-Bidyarani Das), then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 24 the ratio of the aforesaid decisions indicated in Para Nos.13, 14 & 18 of this Judgment, the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 by the Opp. Party No.2 cannot be held as erroneous. For which, the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicated in Para No.9 of this Judgment have become inapplicable to this matter at hand, as in the said decisions, the house in question was held as the shared household of the daughter-in-law, but, in this matter at hand, it has been held above that, the building in question i.e. R/o-51 Arayapalli at Patia is the self-acquired property of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, but not her shared household. For which, the question of interfering with the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar- cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for MWPSC Act, 2007 (Opp. Party No.2) through this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner (daughter-in-law Suchismita Pati) does not arise. WP(C) No.8957 of 2025 p. 25 20. As such, there is no merit in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner (daughter-in-law). The same must fail. 21. In result, this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner (daughter-in-law) is dismissed on contest. 22. The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Case Registration No.16/2023 by the Sub- Collector, Bhubaneswar-cum-Presiding Officer, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for MWPSC Act, 2007(Opp. Party No.2) is confirmed. 23. As such, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. 24. Registry is directed to provide free copies of this judgment immediately to both the parties through their respective learned counsels as per Section 16(7) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The the 20th of May, 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer