Wife of 23 yers told to get out of house

please visit https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Why-supreme-court-calls-498a-as-quot-legal-terrorism-quot--79719.asp#.UbPzmNj2C1k

the tendancy of such like persons gets curbed in thana once called in 498a case. But so far you have taken no action even now you will take none better do not waste time here.

If property is not her husband's property then she can claim for alternative accomodation from husband and maintenance for her and kids if girls and minor boys. If she is in late forty then her husband must be in begining fifties..who will marry  him that too with dowry.They are just causiing mental torture to her.If they are hindu without divorce he can not remarry.

even if it is not husbands prpoperty still it is her matrimonial house and she cannot be ousted. She needs immediatge police help.

 

But so far you have done nothing andstill you willdo nothing as by this age women get used to toture and are unable to imagine life without torture

Dear all,

 

Thank you for your reply. Let me clarify some points.

This lady has no one. She didnt want to be thrown out of the house with two young kids, so she bore up the torture. If she complained, they would kick her out of the house. The family is Christian. Recently her sister in law wrote a letter asking her to get out. She wrote the letter on behalf of her father and brother (the hisband) My cosins has proof of the same. Her grwon up kids are witness to the dowry demands by her husband too and are willing to testify. Recently she was told by a friend who knows law that she can claim adverse possession of a part of the house as she had been living on the independent upstairs portion of the house wothout a rental agreement. Is this true. This is a desperate case and legal opinion will be greatly appreciated.

 

@Sudhir: The property is in the name of the MIL. How long can she stay there, even if SC says she cannot be ousted?

@Ranee: Believe me, men of any age can remarry. This guy has takers.

 

so she has evidence. under DV Act there are provision that she cannot be thrown out if she wasnts to live there even if she files dowry case.

 

in repated

 

  so far you have done nothing and still you will do nothing as by this age women get used to toture and are unable to imagine life without torture

I also disagree with Ranee.  The husband is of advanced age but it is not sure that real age will be told to family of second wife.

Originally posted by : Sudhir Kumar
	I also disagree with Ranee.  The husband is of advanced age but it is not sure that real age will be told to family of second wife.

Yeah I agree.This happens.Aurat hi aurat ka dushmon hain..

I disagree to the above repliers . 1. Under DV act Right to residence can be claimed provided the Husbands is the rightfull owner of the house . If the husband does not own the house than she can ask for rent . 2. Maintanence for the children cant be claimed as the children are above 18 yrs of age . As for her she can claim maintanence provided she is not a working women and does not have sufficient means . 3. Any property or assets onhis name can be claimed by the children only after his death .

But there is a suprem court" landmark judgement which states that wife can not claim RTR in in laws property.

 I SAY WHAT I MEAN

 

S/2  (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.

 

 

 

17. Right to reside in a shared household.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

 (2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

 

19. Residence orders.—

(1) While disposing of an application under sub‑section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order—

(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;

 (b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;

 (c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;

 (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same;

 (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or

 (f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:

 Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.

(2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person.

 (3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence.

 (4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly.

 (5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order.

 (6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.

 (7) The Magistrate may direct the officer-in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order.

 (8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.

 

SHE CAN EVEN SEE OUSTER OF MALE MEMBERS WHO ARE TORTUROIUS

 

 

Thank you Sudhir for that comprehensive reply. It gives me an idea now. Appreciate the trouble you took to pen this down here.

Originally posted by : Sudhir Kumar
	I SAY WHAT I MEAN   S/2  (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.       17. Right to reside in a shared household.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.  (2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.   19. Residence orders.— (1) While disposing of an application under sub‑section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order— (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;  (b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;  (c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;  (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same;  (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or  (f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:  Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman. (2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person.  (3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence.  (4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly.  (5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order.  (6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.  (7) The Magistrate may direct the officer-in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order.  (8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.   SHE CAN EVEN SEE OUSTER OF MALE MEMBERS WHO ARE TORTUROIUS Oh my god is it so  DV act is a Quasi criminal act " First a protection order has to be passed than it has to be breched by the respondent after which the u/s section 31 of the act the proceedings go criminal

This isnt a joint family and as the author of this post has stated they are christians  . The DV act right to residence falls apart when the parents Disown the Son . Hence in the absence of any properties only rent can be claimed .

DV act applies to christians also 498a also applies to them

 

What is process to disown a son?