In-laws have right to house despite son-wife discord: HC

In-laws have right to house despite son-wife discord: HC

Written by Express News Service | New Delhi | April 27, 2012 2:17 am

SUMMARY

Concerned about the harassment of a couple who were dragged into a marital dispute between their son and daughter-in-law,the Delhi High Court has said that trial courts must balance legal rights to ensure that the man’s parents can live in peace in their house.

Concerned about the harassment of a couple who were dragged into a marital dispute between their son and daughter-in-law,the Delhi High Court has said that trial courts must balance legal rights to ensure that the man’s parents can live in peace in their house.

Referring to the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial house,Justice Kailash Gambhir said that although this right was brought on the statute book to protect the woman from being left in the lurch at the hands of her in-laws,it was a reality that the man’s old parents were often made to pay the price for the discord between the couple.

“One cannot or may I say should not shy away from the hard-hitting reality that it is not always the daughter-in-law who is berated,but at times the in-laws who are at the receiving end of the daughter in law’s cantankerousness,” said the court,while granting a decree of possession of a house in South Extension Part-II to a 61-year-old woman.

The court allowed her plea that her daughter-in-law could not claim her right to have possession of a room in the house as it belonged neither to her son nor her husband and the same was given to her (the complainant) by her mother as a wedding gift.

While passing the order in her favour,Justice Gambhir said: “It should not be for a moment consigned to oblivion that the parents-in-law have every right to live in peace in their own property and the right to property vested in them cannot be snatched away and used as a tool to harass them.”

Also expressing displeasure over the growing number of matrimonial cases filed by women against their parents-in-law,the court noted that such laws were being misused frequently.

“This court would like to observe that with a view to mitigating the oppression and inequality suffered by the fairer sex in this country from times immemorial,various woman-friendly laws have been enacted so as to empower the women. It is a bitter truth that where on one hand these progressive laws have led to amelioration and advancement of the cause of the woman in this country,at the same time on the other hand these liberalised statutes have been flagrantly misused,” added Justice Gambhir.

Source-http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/inlaws-have-right-to-house-despite-sonwife-discord-hc/

Should wife get share in husband's property. Marriage Law amendment. NDTV 24x7 01 may 2013

Should wife get share in husband's property. Marriage Law amendment. NDTV 24x7 01 may 2013



Panelists include

Rajan Bhasin from Save Indian Family Foundation
Aparna Chandra , Asst professor , National Law University Delhi
Flavia Agnes, Senior Feminist lawyer
Sanjay Patra, BJP Member

China tries to stop women marrying for money, rather than love 

21 Aug 2011 By Malcolm Moore

With divorce rates soaring, and widespread worries about a new culture of hyper-materialism, the Chinese government is now trying to stop women marrying for money.

In China's booming cities, prospective husbands are now routinely vetted about whether they own a house, and preferably also a car, before a match can be agreed. Tying the knot without a house as part of the deal is jokingly called a "naked marriage" and widely thought to be a risky choice.

"I would choose a luxury house over a boyfriend that always makes me happy without hesitation," said one 24-year-old contestant on If You Are the One, one of China's most popular television dating shows. "And my boyfriend has to have a monthly salary of 200,000 yuan (£18,900)," she demanded.

In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China's Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.

"Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much," said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.

The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment. China's huge property bubble has driven property prices in Shanghai up to £5,000 per square metre when annual salaries average just £6,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html

Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case - THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010

Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case (THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 – Panel discussions on DD News Aamne-samne-20feb11

Full Text of the Proposed Bill is at

http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Marriage%20Laws/Marriage%20Laws%20Bill%202010.pdf

PS :- Video Quality is not upto mark due to signal disturbance

PART 1/2

 

 

 

 

 

PART 2/2

 

 

 

 

 

SINGLE LINK

 

 

Two women arrested for injecting HIV blood into mother

Two women arrested for injecting HIV blood into mother

Hyderabad, Oct 7 – Angry with their mother for refusing to write the property in their names, two women and the husband of one injected her with HIV-contaminated blood in Andhra Pradesh's Guntur town. The three were arrested Thursday.
Durga, 35, Kameshwari, 32, and Kameshwari's husband Sambasiva Rao, 36, have been arrested, police said. They were later produced in a court, which sent them to jail for two weeks.

The trio were after the property of 59-year-old Bharati and allegedly injected her with HIV-infected blood. Bharati complained to police that Durga, her step-daughter from her earlier husband, in connivance with Kameshwari and her husband took her to a hospital where they injected her with the HIV-infected blood.

Kameshwari works as a nurse in a government-run hospital, where she with the help of her husband and sister committed the crime.
Bharati, who was undergoing treatment for fever, grew suspicious when her condition worsened and she underwent blood tests which confirmed that she was injected with contaminated blood.

She alongwith her husband, Rachakonda Ranga Rao, a retired government employee, lodged a complaint with the police.

A case under Domestic Violence Act was booked against her daughters and son-in-law.
The accused were mounting pressure on Bharati to hand over to them her property estimated at Rs.50 lakh and when she refused they hatched a plan to ensure her death.

http://www.indiatalkies.com/2010/10/women-arrested-injecting-hiv-blood-mother.html

Bombay HC sets aside divorce for wife of dead man

Bombay HC sets aside divorce for wife of dead man

TNN, Oct 12, 2010, 12.05am IST
MUMBAI: Can a divorce be granted to a woman whose husband is dead? The Pune family court certainly thought so and passed just such an order recently. But finding the Pune order nothing short of "preposterous, a bench of Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi of the Bombay high court set it aside on Monday.
A Pune-based woman who was married for almost 20 years through a love match and had two minor teenagers was going through a divorce battle when a freak accident took her husband's life.
The fairly affluent couple, Arun and Aruna Joshi ( name changed), were estranged for five to six years. In 2005 the wife in her mid-40s filed a divorce petition citing mental and physical cruelty as ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and sought maintenance too. But after efforts at mediation failed, the couple turned their petition into one of mutual consent in February this year.
The family court allowed them to convert the contested divorce case into a joint plea for divorce. The mutual consent petition had its next date of hearing in May 2010. But in April, Arun in his early 50s, who was walking on one of Pune's main roads became a fatal victim of an accident involving a truck and car. Aruna went to the family court and made an application for closing the case as her husband was no more.
Aruna's lawyer Neela Gokhale told the HC that in a mutual consent divorce matter, the couple continues to remain married till the decree is passed. As the husband died while the matter was pending, the wife , Gokhale, said is now a widow. The family court judge R V Deshmukh rejected the wife's request and said that as the couple had agreed to a divorce by mutual consent and had even sought to convert a contested case into a joint plea for divorce, "nothing else remained to be done. So, he could issue a divorce decree even if the husband was dead.
At the first day of its hearing, Justice Marlapalle who had read the appeal papers and appeared shocked at the Pune court's decision of granting divorce, set it aside. The woman can now have her widow status which she prefers over being called a divorcee. The property issues would now follow the succession laws if no will was made.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/HC-sets-aside-divorce-for-wife-of-dead-man/articleshow/6732341.cms#ixzz126TFkUSD

Court pulls up Delhi sub-divisional magistrate

Court pulls up Delhi sub-divisional magistrate

New Delhi, Oct 4 (IANS) A sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) posted in south Delhi has been pulled up by the Delhi High Court for abusing his power and acting in a corrupt manner in a land dispute case.

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra while setting aside a December 2009 order passed by Vivek Tripathy, SDM, Vasant Vihar, said: “It is most unfortunate that an SDM holding a responsible post in executive could have acted in such a corrupt manner that he could pass an order without caring for the orders passed by his predecessor in respect of the same land.”

The matter is related to a dispute over 14 biswas of land (1 biswa is 8.2 acres) in Bijwasan Village in south Delhi.

Earlier, the SDM’s senior had passed an order in favour of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma who was declared owner of the land. But Tripathy modified the ruling when his senior’s decision was contested by Usha Puri in Bijwasan village.

“The parties were all along contesting rights over the land in various courts. However, the SDM, in patent abuse of his power, conducted the proceedings on Dec 17, 2009, late at night, in the absence of the petitioner,” the court said in an order delivered last week.

“When the petitioner learnt about the late night proceedings, he went to the SDM but he was not allowed to participate in the proceedings and in gross misuse of his power passed the order,” said Justice Dhingra.

Following a legal battle for several years, the 14 biswas land was allotted to Sharma and physical possession was given to him with the help of local police in 2001. Puri contested the order in various forums but the decisions went against them.

In December 2009, on an application filed by Puri, the SDM passed an ex-parte order in a hurry favouring her, without issuing even a notice to Sharma. Later, he declined Sharma’s plea for re-hearing of the matter

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/court-pulls-up-delhi-sub-divisional-magistrate_100439188.html

Forum for harassed mothers-in-law: 200 counselled in a week

Forum for harassed mothers-in-law: 200 counselled in a week

Mon Sep 13 2010

Rohit (name changed on request), a resident of Shimla, is a broken man today. The last six months have brewed so much of trouble in his married life that this 31-year-old is still trying to come to terms with the "deception" of his wife. In February this year, when he was away to Panchkula along with his family, including his wife, his house in Shimla caught fire. Police investigations revealed that Rohit's wife was the mastermind behind the inferno and she had taken help of the domestic helps to execute her plan. "Since one of the maids got burnt in the incident, she spilled the beans. My wife had paid them Rs 5,000 and also provided them with petrol to burn the house down," said the `victim' who has been married for four years. The family claims the woman also took away all the money and jewellery that was lying in the house before burning it down. While Rohit has filed a divorce petition in a local court in Shimla, the wife has also given a counter complaint of domestic violence with the police and is now "out on bail".
Rohit and his mother had come all the way from Shimla, after seeking "counselling" over the phone at the local chapter of All India Mothers-in-law Protection Forum, to attend a meeting in Sector 10 on Sunday. "We had read about it in the newspapers and called up. These eights months have been traumatic for us but we want to fight it out now as we have been wronged," said Rohit's mother.
This is not an isolated case coming to the forum. The local chapter, which is only a week old, boasts of about 60 members and also claim to have counselled over 200 harassed mothers-in-law till now. The members had gathered near Stop and Stare, Sector 10, for a weekly meeting.
"A lot of people who sought counselling on the phone came to meet us today. This will be a weekly feature. We want mothers-in-law who are viewed rather infamously as the villain of peace to come up with their tale of woes at the hands of their daughters-in-law," said Manjeet Puri, coordinator of the chapter.
Most of the people who have come to the forum lament the "misuse" of Section 498 A of the IPC, which deals with cruelty against women by husband and his family. These harassed mothers-in-law say most of the conflict pertains to division of wealth and property made by their daughters-in-law; failing to coerce to them leads to slapping of "false" cases of dowry harassment and even domestic violence. "I have a house in Gurgaon where my daughter-in-law is living with my grandson. She wanted that I should transfer the property in her name and when I refused to do so, she filed a case of dowry harassment against us. It has been almost two years that she is staying separately," said one Harminder Kaur.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/forum-for-harassed-mothersinlaw-200-counselled-in-a-week/680901/2

Divorce at 70? Plan some spiritual growth, says Supreme Court

Divorce at 70? Plan some spiritual growth, says Supreme Court

Saturday, Aug 28, 2010

At the age of 70, it’s time to go on a pilgrimage to Hardwar and be divorced from the material world, instead of being engaged in a prolonged legal battle for divorce.

These are the words of the Supreme Court for an aged Juhu couple, seeking separation under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Making a bid to make them conscious that the age is catching up, apex court judges on Thursday counseled petitioner Veena, 70, and her husband, Govardhan Kapoor, 75, to share the roof. However, the court suggested that if the two wish, they may keep themselves separated by a wooden partition.

Veena doesn’t want to share the apartment with Govardhan and contested a Bombay high court judgment last year that made her share the accommodation as per a mutual agreement between them in the divorce case.

The couple married in Delhi on April 26, 1969. They have two sons — Navin, 36, who lives in America, and Sachin, 33, lives with his father.

In 1981, the couple started litigation after Govardhan suffered heavy losses in his business. Charges and counter charges ensued and Govardhan alleged that his wife had an extra-marital affair.

Govardhan’s case got stronger after Sachin testified in favour of the allegation.

While Govardhan moved a law suit seeking an injunction against Veena from dispossessing him from the flat, she sought a direction asking him not to enter the house.

Govardhan agreed to the term that Veena is the owner of the flat but he would live there with certain conditions that included installing separate electric meters and demarcating territory with a wooden partition.

But Veena’s lawyer DK Garg on Thursday told a bench headed by justice GS Singhvi that she couldn’t be expected to live under the same roof particularly when she had been accused of being in an adulterous relationship. She lamented that even her son had also sided with his father.

Disposing of her petition, the court said: “You can’t throw out the aged husband, but you can get the son out.”

No sympathy for habitual rent defaulter: Delhi HC

No sympathy for habitual rent defaulter: Delhi HC

PTI

Mon, Aug 23 05:14 PM

New Delhi, Aug 23 (PTI) No sympathy can be shown to a tenant who is a habitual defaulter in paying rent, the Delhi High court has said and asked a business man to vacate the NDMC premises. "Every licensee or allotee and even an unauthorised occupant is obliged to pay the monthly license fee so long as he is using the premises and no undue sympathy can be shown to those who wilfully and contemptuously commit persistent defaults in payment of periodical rents," Justice Kailash Gambhir said in a judgement recently.

"The petitioner(Kumar) was a habitual defaulter in the payment of rents/damages and consequently no amount of discretion can be exercised by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner," Justice Gambhir also said. He dismissed a petition filed by one Vijay Kumar who challenged the New Delhi Municipal Council''s decision in rejecting his application for regularisation of allotment under its 1997 policy and the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer.

The Court, however, granted 15 days'' time to Kumar to vacate the premises-UG-40, Palika Place, R K Ashram Marg and asked the civic agency not to take coercive action against him. The court upheld NDMC''s decision refusing to regularise Kumnar''s shop under the 1997 policy and rejected his argument that the civic agency has adopted a pick-and-chose policy while regularising the allotment of shops.

According to NDMC, Kumar was alloted the shop in 1992 for five years and his application for renewal of his licence in respect of his shop was rejected in 1998 on account of non- payment of rents. The petitioner was in arrears of licence fee/rent to the tune of Rs 1,32,431 as on November 15, 2007, the date on which the Estate Officer had passed an order for eviction of the shop, as per NDMC. Challenging the Estate Officer''s order, Kumar had filed a case before the District Judge who dismissed his petition in July 2009 and upheld the Estate Officer''s decision for eviction.

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/no-sympathy-for-habitual-rent-defaulter-delhi-hc/255198.html

Income of a man's family can decide maintenance, says HC

Income of a man's family can decide maintenance, says HC

MUMBAI: The joint family finances of a man can be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance to be paid to his estranged wife, the Bombay high court has ruled in a case involving a 31-year-old Pune businessman.

 
Hiking eight-fold the maintenance the businessman, Amar Shejare, must pay his estranged wife Seema and their minor daughter to Rs 20,000 a month from Rs 2,500, a division bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Amjad Sayed said, "Considering the lifestyle of the Shejare family, it would necessarily follow that the income of (Amar) was substantial." The judges added, "(Amar) had substantive income and considering the holdings of the joint family, he is capable of paying the monthly maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter." The court also directed Amar to pay an additional Rs 10,000 to his wife towards legal costs.

Amar had contended that the property was owned by his joint Hindu undivided family. "We are conscious of the fact that Shejare is one of the coparceners (joint heir in the family property) and will have only a share in the said income," the judges said, but pointed out that the family owned considerable property. (Names have been changed to protect the couple's identities.)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Income-of-a-mans-family-can-decide-maintenance-says-HC/articleshow/6353105.cms#ixzz0x7qM756a

Illegitimate children not entitled to ancestral property: Supreme Court

Illegitimate children not entitled to ancestral property: Supreme Court

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Supreme Court has ruled that children born out of a live-in relationship cannot inherit ancestral property, but only the self-acquired property of their parents.

"A child born of void or voidable marriage is notentitled to claim inheritance in ancestral copercenary property but is entitled only to claim share in self-acquired properties, if any," the apex court said in an order.

A bench of justices BS Chauhan and justice Swatanter Kumar passed the order while quashing a Madras high court judgement which took the view that children born out of live-in relationships were entitled to a share in ancestral property.

In the instant case, a dispute arose whether the two children of Rengammal born on account of a live-in relationship with a bachelor Muthu Reddiar were entitled to a share in the latter's ancestral property after his death.

"In the instant case, respondents (claimants) had not pleaded at any stage that the suit land was a self-acquired property of Muthu Reddiar," the apex court said.

"It is evident from the record that Mutthu Reddiar did not partition his joint family properties and died issueless/intestate in 1974. Therefore, the question of inheritance of coparcenary property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in relationship, could not arise," it said.

Muthu's relatives had contended that Rengammal was already married to one Alagarswami Reddiar and hence the purported live-in-relationship was void and neither she nor her children can stake claim for a share in the property.

A civil court and the first appellate court both ruled in favour of Muthu's relatives on the ground that Rengammal was already married to Alagarswami and hence her illegitimate children were not entitled to any share in ancestral property.

However, the high court took the view that mere live-in relationship between two parties would lead to presumption of marriage and decided the case in favour of Rangammal.

Interpreting the Hindu Marriage Act, the apex court said that Section 16 recognised the right of a child to inherit properties of their illegitimate parents, provided it was self-acquired.

"In view of the legal fiction contained in section 16, the illegitimate children for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate.

"They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation is limited to the properties of the parents," the apex court said citing an earlier judgement in the PEK Kalliana Amma (1976) case.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_illegitimate-children-not-entitled-to-ancestral-property-supreme-court_1388181

SC snubs HC, says living in akin to marriage

SC snubs HC, says living in akin to marriage

August 17, 2010

Days after the Delhi High Court held that a partner could "walk in and walk out" of a live-in relationship, the Supreme Court has ruled to the contrary. The bench held: "The live-in-relationship if continued for such a long time, cannot be termed in as 'walk in and walk out' relationship and there is a presumption of marriage between them which the appellants failed to rebut".

The bench dismissed an appeal filed by one Madan Mohan Singh from UP who had sought to reverse the Allahabad High Court judgment permitting the authorities to include the names of four children, born out of the live-in relationship, as legal heirs to the legacy of the petitioners' father.

After perusing the records and concurrent findings by the district authorities, the bench held the petitioners' father, Chandra Deo Singh, lived with his live-in partner, Shakuntala  till his death on December 12, 1979. Their relationship, as husband and wife, had been accepted not only by the society but also by the family members.

Singh's children born out of the live-in relationship moved the authorities to include their names as legal heirs. The petitioner claimed there was nothing on record to show that Singh got married with Shakuntala in accordance with law.

"At the most she could be Singh's concubine and, therefore, the respondents have no right to inherit any share in the land," the petitioner claimed.

 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/SC-snubs-HC-says-living-in-akin-to-marriage/Article1-587751.aspx

------------------

Introducing a fresh aspect towards the lively debate on legitimacy of the ‘live in’ relationship as well as legitimacy of kids given birth to out of this kind of relationship, the Top court has decided the fact that such children are not necessarily unlawful. The Supreme Court has additionally held that such kids possess a right to inherit the properties left behind by one of the partners in this kind of relationship, reports dnaindia
“If a man as well as a lady are living under the same roof and living together for quite a few years, there will be a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate,” said a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan on Friday. The bench said the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubine.

Earlier, Delhi high court had said that the alliance is like “walk- in and walk-out without strings attached to it.’’ But the Supreme Court has held that the relationship is presumed to be marriage in the eye of law if the partners keep the bonding alive for a long time.

The judgment that may have a strong bearing on several petitions raising the dispute on legitimacy of children born out of the live-in association among others was delivered in an appeal filed by one Madan Mohan Singh, challenging the judgments of Allahabad High Court and the two land consolidation tribunals which had allowed the right on the estate left behind by one Chandra Deo Singh, to the two sons and four daughters of Chandra Deo.

Madan Mohan said he solely inherits the property left behind by Chandra Deo, but Rajni Kant, his brother Anjani Kumar and four sisters contested the claim by saying since they were born out of the decade-long live-in relationship between Chandra Deo and their mother Shakuntala, they were the inheritors of the landed property.

http://news.vakilno1.com/sc-rules-that-children-born-out-of-live-in-relationship-are-not-not-illegitimate-1357.html

--------------

citer for the above mentioned judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004
Madan Mohan Singh & Ors.           ..Appellants
Versus
Rajni Kant & Anr.                     ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

SC upholds HC orders for Daughter-in-Law to pay rent to Mother-in-law

SC upholds HC orders for Daughter-in-Law to pay rent to Mother-in-law

\Pune: In a landmark decision of its kind, the Apex Court upheld Mumbai High Court’s order, ordering a daughter-in-law to pay rent to her mother-in-law for illegally occupying the house. The order was passed by the SC on Monday, 19^th July 2010.

The Supreme Court comprising of a bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma has upheld the order of the Mumbai High Court, where a woman was asked to pay the dues to her Mother-in-law, who happens to be the owner of the property. This property was illegally possessed by the daughter-in-law by approaching the court with unclean hands in a divorce case filed by the woman Manisha (name changed) against her husband Deepak (name changed) who is based out of Pune currently.

The High Court bench comprising of Justice D.B. Bhosale, had directed the petitioner Manisha to pay rent for a period of 12 months at Rs. 5,000/- per month for the period in which she and her parents had illegally occupied the flat. The High Court also noted the fact that the Domestic Violence Act was being severely misused by women to grab property of husbands and in-laws.

“I have lost precious five years of my youth and my career because of this litigation. At the end, even if I won the case, I will never get these peak years back. Who is responsible for my lost years? Who is going to take the onus of returning the lost happiness of my parents at their old age? However, I am extremely thankful to my counsel Mrs. Seema Dhavale for helping me to get justice” Deepak signs off.

Says Atit Rajpara, member of Save Indian Family Foundation, a men’s rights organization, “This order by the Apex Court comes to rescue for those countless men who are not only facing rampant domestic violence from their wives but are also unable to get any respite due to hostile social situation pit against men. As per National Crime Records Bureau, in the last 12 years i.e. 1996 – 2008, 170,000 husbands have committed suicide directly due to Domestic Violence. Yet, there is no law in India to protect men from Domestic Violence.”

http://www.newsxonline.com/world-news/sc-upholds-hc-orders-for-daughter-in-law-to-pay-rent-to-mother-in-law-201007221504

Full text @

Couple in 80s battles for divorce, property

Couple in 80s battles for divorce, property

Wednesday, Aug 4, 2010, 2:06 IST

Eighty-four-year-old JM Kohli is not only battling brain haemorrhage, but is also busy fighting his divorce case to separate from his 80-year-old wife Vimla.

Kohli and Vimla got married in 1953. But things soon turned sour between the two and the couple divorced in 1955. However, Vimla then decided to give the marriage a second chance and entered into a compromise with Kohli in 1967.

But Vimla’s greed for property led to the couple splitting ways. Senior advocate Geeta Luthra appearing for Kohli said, “Kohli was befooled by Vimla’s brother and other people and they all use tactics to stop his promotion and other benefits [Kohli worked as a senior officer in the Central Public Works Department]… In 1979, when Vimla’s brother got a DDA flat in Munirka, she asked Kohli to make all the payments and moved in there with her 25-year-old daughter.”

Few months later, Vimla and her daughter forced Kohli to leave the house. After remaining homeless for years, Kohli finally filed for divorce in 1983 in a trial court. The decree in Kohli’s favour was finally passed in 1994.

After divorcing Vimla, Kohli married Usha. The couple has a 10-year-old son.

But Vimla did not give up. She filed a property declaration suit against Kohli in a Delhi court, which he subsequently challenged in the Delhi high court. Vimla moved the high court in 2003 challenging the trial court’s verdict in the divorce case which ruled in Kohli’s favour.

Challenging Kohli’s declaration suit Vimla sought right to the Punjabi Bagh property. However, Luthra argued, “Kohli was forced to give the statement that Vimla has equal rights to the property and his statement was recorded by the court as well… Kohli remains very ill and has even suffered a brain hemorrhage, but it was Usha and not Vimla who took care of him.”

Therefore, the property should be given to the son and not Vimla, Luthra said.

Justice Kailash Gambhir, who was hearing the matter, said, “It is unfortunate that both the parties have to fight their cases at this age. However, both the kids [daughter and son] have equal rights to the property.”

The court has asked both parties to arrive at an amicable solution and has posted the matter for hearing on August 11.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_couple-in-80s-battles-for-divorce-property_1418521

Mother-in-law kills man for daughter’s property

Mother-in-law kills man for daughter’s property

August 3rd, 2010

Aug. 2: Upset with her daughter for getting married to a man of her own choice, a woman allegedly got her son-in-law murdered and later burned the body. The man was killed on July 17, a police officer said. The police on Sunday arrested the woman and her three associates in Vellore and brought them to the city on Monday.

The woman had feared that she would lose her share in her daughter’s property. The prime accused has been identified as S. Bharathi, a resident of Srirampura, and her associates as Michael, P. Selvam and Saravan, all from Vellore in Tamil Nadu.

The murder was discovered after Bharathi’s daughter V. Pravina filed a missing complaint with the police. Pravina got married to Vimal Kumar, alias Manja, a few months ago despite strong opposition from her mother. After the wedding, the couple shifted to Laggere while Bharathi vacated her house in Srirampura and returned to Vellore.

Their Srirampura house has been registered in Pravina’s name. “Bharati wanted Pravina to marry a man of her choice so that the three could live in the same house. But Bharathi feared that Pravina would sell the property and she would not get any share,” the officer said. After returning to Vellore, Bharathi and the three accused, hatched a plot to murder Vimal Kumar. According to sources, Michael, one of the accused, is Bharathi’s paramour.

As per plan, the accused hired a car and after reaching the city, they stopped near ESI hospital in Rajajinagar around 8 pm on July 17. “Bharathi then called up Pravina and asked her to send Vimal to take her home as she did not know the way. When Vimal reached the spot, he was pushed into the car and strangled to death,” the officer said.

Meanwhile, when Pravina failed to reach her husband on phone, she filed a missing complaint. “During the investigation, we found that the accused has murdered Vimal and burned his body near Krishnagiri,” the officer said.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengaluru/mother-law-kills-man-daughter%E2%80%99s-property-181

'पति के घर में है हक, उसके पैरंट्स के घर में नहीं'

'पति के घर में है हक, उसके पैरंट्स के घर में नहीं'

प्रस ॥ नई दिल्ली
पत्नी अपने पति के घर में रहने के लिए हिस्सा तो मांग सकती है, लेकिन पति के पैरंट्स के घर में कानूनी तौर पर रहने का उसका

&lta href="http://ads.indiatimes.com/ads.dll/clickthrough?slotid=3793" target="_blank">&ltimg src="http://ads.indiatimes.com/ads.dll/photoserv?slotid=3793" border="0" width="300" height="250" alt="Advertisement"/></a>

अधिकार नहीं बनता। अदालत ने याचिकाकर्ता महिला की उस दलील को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें वह अपनी सास के घर में रहना चाह रही थी।
अडिशनल सेशन जज की अदालत ने कहा कि पति अपनी मां से अलग किसी किराए के मकान में रह रहा है। याचिकाकर्ता महिला ने दलील दी कि सास ने उसकी शादी से पहले ही वह मकान खरीदा था। ऐसे में उस मकान पर भी उसका अधिकार है, लेकिन कोर्ट ने इस दलील को खारिज कर दिया।
अदालत ने कहा कि महिला का अधिकार उसके पति के घर पर होता है और वह अपने पति के घर या पति द्वारा किराये पर लिए गए घर में रहने के लिए अधिकार जता सकती है या फिर पति की जॉइंट प्रॉपर्टी में रहने की अधिकारी है, न कि पति के पैरंट्स के बनाए गए घर में।
महिला ने मैजिस्ट्रेट के उस फैसले को चुनौती दी थी, जिसमें मैजिस्ट्रेट ने महिला को सास के घर में घुसने से रोक दिया था।

 

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/delhiarticleshow/6087711.cms

Feud over Fernandes: wife takes care his property and money but not his health- Court steps in

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/feud-over-fernandes-court-steps-in-34967

 

Feud over Fernandes: wife takes care his property and money but not his health- Court steps in

New Delhi: The man India knew as the Giant Killer is now reduced to a battle between his wife and long time friend.
A day after Jaya Jaitly was stopped from entering the former Defence Minister's home, today a twist to the battle. The Delhi High court has ordered that George Fernandes appear in court on Monday. (Read: Jaya Jaitly kept out of Fernandes' home)
The court was hearing a petition filed by Fernandes' brothers, Richard and Michael, who want custody of their brother alleging that the former Union minister, who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, is not being properly treated by his wife.
The court now wants to see for itself what George's condition is like.

The 80-year-old former Defence Minister is rarely seen outside. He lives with his wife, Leila Kabir, at a private house in South Delhi.
Fernandes brothers, supported by Jaya, have been locked with Kabir over George's property, which is believed to be more than 20 crores. (Watch: Fight over Fernandes' legacy)
"I am fighting for Fernandes' value system. I am fighting for the right to my own simple ordinary property, and I am fighting for justice for the sake of a man who has fought for it for everybody else all his life. I think they are undermining and humiliating Fernandes and that is what the shame is, and obviously the people who are doing this don't know what he stands for so, they don't deserve to be looking after him today," said former president of the Samata Party, Jaya Jaitly. (Read: I am fighting for George's values, says Jaya Jaitly)
"It's a not a question of money. I am a professional nurse and I want to ensure he is getting the best treatment," said Leila Kabir.
George's brothers also allege that Leila and her sons are not allowing them to meet him.
On Monday, the court will decide who gets custody of George, the man who once took crucial decisions for India, now has to depend on the court to decide for him.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/feud-over-fernandes-court-steps-in-34967?cp