Tajobsindia (Senior Partner ) 20 September 2014

In india no one wants to allow set laws of apex court settled

In India nobody wants to allow settled Laws of Apex Court remain settled for long;

"Shared Household" definition which is about to come after analysis by Apex Court since it is now challenged by makers of PWDV Act (Lawyers Collective):

S. 3 DV Act = Any 'home' where since the date of marriage a 'wife' stays for even 'one night' or till 'kicked out'.

Shared household = Husband's name registered rented home, In-Laws name registered home, sister-in-laws name registered home, brother-in-laws name registered home, any of the family's minor's name registered home, husband's side grandfather - grandmother's name registered home, husband's friend's name registered home, even husband's friend's wife's name registered home will all be treated as shared "home". Further to this definition it is interpreted that a 'home' can be in India or anywhere in the World.

Wife = Any adult Indian female who has done legal marriage with a Indian man OR any adult Indian un-married female (other than falling in sapinda relationships) who lives with a Indian un-married man for more than 24 Hrs. will be treated as his 'wife'; in one master stroke why not even re-visit Apex Court decision in live-in as it touches DV Acts "shared house" original definition too and does not Anand Grover of Lawyers Collective want to include abala live-in females in such revisited definition !

One night = A Wife staying for 24 Hrs. IST time at a 'Home' of say husband registered name OR his sister's registered name OR his brother's registered name OR family's minor's registered name OR grandfather - grandmother of husband registered name OR friend's registered name OR even friend's wife's registered name.

Kicked out = Check-in 1200 Midnight / Check-out 1200 Midnight next day (it is seen in all DV Complaints that allegation of 'violence' starts 'just after 'very first night' and for the purpose of this Act 24 hrs. is calculated as per IST as being one continuous length of 24 hrs. stay at a 'home' amounting to full 24 hrs. by the 'wife's watch and not by any other's wristwatch!

Only Four and 1/2 benefits of above analysis which is about to come as interpretation from Apex court in news paper reported case;

1. Indian male will now really think ten times to marry or not to marry if a ‘home’ is there.

2. Indian male will not allow 'wife' to stay for full 24 hrs. in a ‘home’

3. Indian male will first earn enough and save enough to buy a ‘home’ and give that home as dowry first to an adult Indian female and then seek her hand in marriage.

4. Indian male will not marry an Indian adult age female but instead will marry any foreign national i.e. non Indian origin adult age female to save 'home'.

1/2. Litigation on same cause of action will come down r/w less legal fees to advocates such as Anand Grover (r/w Ms. Indira Jaisingh) of Lawyers Collective the brainchild behind bringing Bharat Ratna DV Act in India!

I feel if Apex Court decides in tombstone once for all all the above when analysing 'again' 'shared home' then I will be the happiest person as I am not sure of others. Reason being I will not have to interpret again and again what is legislative intent when State's HC churns themself contradictory decisions on raised subject which ought not to have been case in first instance as once Apex Court means 'highest court' of land has decided that a DIL has no right to claim 'home' of FIL-MIL!

Link of news reporting which prompted me to pre-announce decision which is about to be argued and is bound to come;

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Bahu-wants-claim-on-in-laws-house/articleshow/42949607.cms

[Sorry to say why even Amendment in Hindu Succession Act, 2005 ever done to include Indian daughter's claim their share from their natal home? They donot get from their natal home what they should legally get so get from husband's side is what is called empowerment in India ]

BTW, in such times of desperate needs of millions of depressed Indian Males having ‘home’ (p.s. aforesaid definition of home) do Indian Males know where to find 'home' of Lord Hanuman …………

Reply Follow

7 Replies

fighting back (exec) 20 September 2014

so again........we have to keep our fingers crossed for our parents peace..........what on earth makes the supreme court think again on a well settled law laid down on its own?

on more nail about to be hit in the mens coffin..........get ready to get hit by it, and try to find loopholes to escape the law.......its a never ending cat and mouse game.. again initiated by a couple of lawyers to play around with thousands of litgants across the country....TAJOBS has well mentioned that in future, people should think a thousand times before getting married...the laws is intruding a personal space called marriage to such an extent that marriage itself should be called off socially,,,,,,sensible people must think two hundred times before getting married. all this new type of relook of the SC is just to create more confusion and tension in the already consfused situation prevailing on the ground.....need to pray to lord hanuman i guess............

fighting back (exec) 20 September 2014

isnt there any protest against this admitted appeal?

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner ) 20 September 2014

Originally posted by : fighting back
	isnt there any protest against this admitted appeal?

I donot know known cases of 'protest' but 'protest' is not right word used here, it is referred to as 'Application for Impleadment and Directions' useful for all those victims whose wife's are claiming in-laws registered properties as their 'shared house'.

[Last reply]

1 Like

fighting back (exec) 20 September 2014

as per your analysis. if all the inlaws houses were to be treated as 'shared' houses, then i guess all the 'loopholes' will be plugged to bluntly define a shared household. but doesnt this relook questions SC's own settled judgement? and will it be retrospective

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 29 September 2014

Don't decide in a hurry that this is going to be the last judgment on the subject issue, you may soon find a ruling superseding this too.

fighting back (exec) 29 September 2014

@kalaiselvan......what do you mean to say..can you please elaborate....not able to understand what you mean...........

that this is going to be the last judgment on the subject issue, you may soon find a ruling superseding this too.

(Guest)

Mean to say, who ever has that tingling left in them will go for appeal, re-appeal and PIL and so forth, hence, no law is permanent, they can be changed, Honorable SC will itself re-look into the matter when another similar case comes up and re-think the whole thing.

Coupled with the government's intervention, proceedings in parliament, it can be very well said that nothing is final, law keeps changing, like seasons.