text: 498A-A FIGHT MIRROR FOR EVERY SUFFERER 2 BE A NEXT SAVIOUR - A BLOG FOR ALL VICTIM'S OF BIASED LAW : February 2015
  Woman can't claim share in self-acquired property of dad-in-law: Court
  Courtesy:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Mumbai/Woman-cant-claim-share-in-self-acquired-property-of-dad-in-law-Court/articleshow/46363775.cms
  Rebecca Samervel,TNN | Feb 25, 2015, 06.59 AM IST
  MUMBAI: A sessions court observed last week that a woman cannot claim a share of her father-in-law's self-acquired property under the Domestic Violence Act. The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman who sought a share of the household from her estranged husband. "Share household does not include self-acquired property of parents-in-law of an aggrieved woman. A copy of the registered agreement, loan receipts, tax receipts etc clearly shows that the property is purchased by the father-in-law and it is his share household property, it cannot be termed as a joint family property or an ancestral property," the court observed.
  The appeal, filed in 2011, states that the couple was married in 2006. After the wedding, the woman stayed with her in-laws and husband at their flat in Vasai. The woman alleged that she was forced to leave this home. In 2009, she filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act against her husband and in-laws, citing violence. In the complaint, she also filed an application stating that she wanted a share of the house as her husband had not allowed her to enter the matrimonial house. However, on April 4, 2011, a magistrate court rejected her appeal.
  The woman's advocate told the sessions court that she has resided in the house with her husband who had a share in the property and hence, she too had a share in the house. It was further argued that the husband had exercised his right to stay on the property and as a spouse, this right extended to her, too. On the basis of these arguments, the woman said that she should be allowed to enter and reside in the house. The woman also claimed that it was her husband who was initially paying the EMI on the loan taken for the flat. The court, however, pointed out that even if a husband and wife live together in a dozen places, that property does not become a shared household.
  "The property in which the woman is claiming her right is not a joint family property or the ancestral property of her husband. Therefore, she is not entitled to have a shared household in the property of her parents-in-law. She also cannot claim alternative accommodation from the parents-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act," the court observed.
  Posted by Anurag PrasadSingh at 03:42
  Labels: Domestic Violence, Informatory articles you would love to read it, Marriage and expenses, Suite of Injunction in marital disputes and others