Skip to main content

Woman Can’t Claim Right Over Her Father-In-Law’s Property

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a woman cannot claim as a matter of right to occupy any part of a self-acquired property of her husband’s parents against their wishes. The court relied on a number of judgments and dismissed an appeal by a woman claiming residential rights on her matrimonial house, owned by her father-in-law. Justice Raj Mohan Singh upheld the judgment of the lower appellate court and held, ‘In view of above and in the light of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, it can be safely culled out that the appellant has no right to live in the self-acquired property of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree against the appellant.’ Relying on apex court judgments, the court observed, “During subsistence of marriage, maintenance of a married wife is a personal obligation on the part of husband. Such an obligation can be met from the properties of the husband out of joint properties. The properties shown exclusively in the name of parents cannot be subject matter of any attachment or enforcement of any right of maintenance.” The property in question belongs to one Jitender Kumar, a retd. Naval officer and father-in-law of the petitioner. He filed a case against his daughter-in-law and son seeking vacation of the first floor of his house. As per case details, a marital discord erupted between the couple and after several intervening circumstances and followed by a compromise, the daughter-in-law e moved back in after the birth of her daughter. However, things turned sour again and the father-in-law moved the court seeking their eviction. The court in November 2015 had directed that the house be vacated within two months and were restrained from sub-letting the house in question. The son, however, held that he had already moved out of the said household and was putting up in a rented accommodation. The wife, on the other hand, continued to stay there and contested that they were members of a joint hindu family and had a right over her matrimonial home where she was putting up since marriage and also gave birth to her daughter. The court dismissed the petition and observed that in statutes like the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the maintenance of wife is the personal obligation of the husband and cannot be satisfied from the self-acquired property of the parents of the husband.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/woman-cant-claim-right-father-laws-property-punjab-haryana-hc/

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...