Shared household

1. NO

Tajobsindia Sir, 

Would  you please illustrate it.I also want to know.

Thanks.

First specify that whether you want to buy a new flat?

or

input name of your kids in same flat where u r residing.

Here are her limited facts before us as the way I look at it
 

1. She says she is purchasing a flat

2. She further says she is purchasing a flat on her own name

Pre-assumption follows is she is going to (probably) live in that flat

Pre-assumption follows is she is going to (probably) give it on rent.

3. She says she is securing future of children by purchasing a flat

4. She says she is in a shared household.

Pre-assumption follows is that when husband / In Laws are alive they will not allow a wife to buy their own flat.

5. She says to buy a flat she is seeking bank loan.

Pre-assumption follows is to seek purchase of a flat she will be sole borrower or her natal members can be roped in as co-borrowers.

6. She will be called as Aggrieved Person / Applicant the moment she prays for any relief under The Act, 2005 once she purchases a flat with above inputs and only if she claims some relief under The Act, 2005.

7. She is no doubt a "wife"

8. She is no doubt has a established respondent to constitute "relationship" as per definition of The Act, 2005

She has not given any other hint to further expand the challenges before us by applying Law on facts with our observations more than above 1 till 8 is my opinion unless she replies and gives more hints then my reply may change J  

Now, here is Law (clumsy drafted) from Bare Act of PWDVA, 2005 and only important Ss which are going to be looked at "prime facie" stage by a Magistrate are reproduced for clarity:-

"S. 2. Definitions.

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

(b) XXX

(c) XXX

(d) XXX

(e) XXX

(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

(g) XXX

(h) XXX

(i) XXX

(j) XXX

(k) XXX

(l) XXX

(m) XXX

(n) XXX

(o) “protection order” means an order made in terms of section 18;

(p) XXX

(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

XXXXXX

(r) XXX

(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

(t) XXX

Comments from Bare Act (itself and these are not mine)

This section defines the various expressions occurring in the Act. The definitions of “aggrieved person”, “domestic relationship”, “domestic violence”, “monetary relief”, “Protection Officer”, “protection order”, “residence order”, “respondent”, “service provider” and “shared household” are some of them. As per the Act, any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to act of domestic violence by the respondent is an aggrieved person. The expression “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are members of a family living together as a joint family."  

Now the challenge question before us is a simple one "Can a flat purchased by wife’s own money which is on her own name be called as shared household as she is claiming establishment of  domestic relationship over it" !

To THAT my answer still stands as

NO.

Reasoning:

1. Respondent(s) are not fools not to file 'preliminary objections' on above lines to consider first issue prime facile on merit before any other issue a wife who has purchased a flat by her own money for her own self raises. 

2. Now here are my (trademark why bze my fellow Advs. bro. do not like) rebuttal based on facts before us applying the very Law (prime facie as the whole Law is prime facie whether you like it or not is not my issue) And as per The Act, 2005 with (my) reasoning (you all may have your own which can only be tested if this wife puts her agrievements before a Court (meanwhile this is what it is as it stands):-

A. To constitute 'shared household' she has to live or have lived at any point of time or lived together with respondent(s) in that flat. That falt is having no clear lien at today's date. Both conditions i.e. shared household with a respondent needs to be prime facie satisfied 50:50 at interim stage to get any relief. Can she fortify this which she is only concerned about right now ! The answer is a clear NO.

B. By simply purchasing a flat by a wife on her own name does not constitute a "domestic relationship". To constitute a 'domestic relationship" two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household should be prime facie established. "Prime Facie" is she fortifying any and all of these two stated conditions 50:50 at interim stage ? The answer is a clear NO.

Above are my views. I may be wrong for that correct me instead of keeping quite and referring this post reply of mine into some other thread out of the blue J

BTW what are your views as you asked me first to this wife's que which is before us?.

Simple Logic with simple answers

A Working Woman , purchasing an Independent Flat with her own means in her own name means she is the sole owner of that flat

BUT THIS IN NO WAY WILL DENY HER RIGHTS IN THE SHARED HOUSEHOLD SHE IS LIVING IN

MIND YOU , if its an ancestral property , their children has a right

If its purchased by the husband's father with his oewn income , her husband has an equal right which automatically shifts to you in case anything happens to husband ]

 GO AHEAD AND PURCHASE FLAT

NO COURT OF LAW CAN BAR YOU FROM   SHARED HOUSEHOLD RIGHTS

Thanks to all.

I stand by my opinion ,

What I said above , I stand by it

MIND YOU , if its an ancestral property , their children has a right

If its purchased by the husband's father with his oewn income , her husband has an equal right which automatically shifts to you in case anything happens to husband ]

First her husband has a right  (if ancestral , their children) , if purchased with his income and not yet transferred or Willed , her husband has a rigt to property  and in case something happens to the husband , wife has a right

DV Act is for Domestic Violence , which has nothing to do here

Its simple property rights