Skip to main content

Women abusing law to silence in-laws: Court

A trial court has expressed concern over laws for protection of women being "blatantly abused and misused" against the in-laws. The court made the observations while granting relief of possession of property to a 70-year-old widowed woman who had accused her estranged daughter-in-law of illegally entering and staying in her house.
"The case reflects the manner in which the special laws for protection of women are being blatantly abused and misused only to silence the in-laws. Courts cannot permit such an abuse. Needless to say, courts of law would certainly and effectively step in for redressal to stop this inappropriate and illegal conduct," Additional District Judge Kamini Lau said.
Giving relief to the septuagenarian, the court ordered the daughter-in-law and her two children, who are major, to peacefully vacate the property in Shastri Nagar within six months. The plaintiff had approached court seeking "a decree of permanent injunction by restraining her daughter-in-law and two grandchildren from forcibly and illegally dispossessing her from her house."
The court allowed the old woman's plea and restrained the defendants from selling off the property. The elderly woman, in her petition, had said that due to strained relations her daughter-in-law had left the matrimonial house in 1983 and the couple was legally separated in 1984. A criminal case was lodged against the in-laws in which they were acquitted.
The aged woman said her son died in 2007 after which her daughter-in-law illegally entered her house with her children and refused to vacate it. However, the daughter-in-law said that the plaintiff was lying and claimed that her husband had not given her divorce. All his legal heirs had legal right in the property as she had also contributed in constructing the house, she claimed.
The daughter-in-law also contended that the plaintiff had not placed on record any document showing her ownership of the property.
The court, however, held that it was established that the property was in the name of the mother-in-law and on the date of filing of the case she was residing there. "It is proved that the defendants have been residing in the suit property as unauthorised occupants. Hence, and in order to safeguard the interest of the mother-in-law and a senior citizen in the property, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession and injunction as asked for in the plaint," the court said.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...