Skip to main content

Wife has first right to man's property: HC

A woman doesn't have a claim to her partner's home over that of his wife, the Delhi high court has said in an important ruling on legal rights in a live-in relationship.
Justice Najmi Waziri on Tuesday came to the rescue of a 78-year-old widow, a US citizen, by restoring to her possession of a Greater Kailash property owned by her husband. The senior citizen, who now lives in the US, married an Indian businessman in 1963 and was forced to move court when she was ousted from her matrimonial home following her husband's death last year.
"A live-in or mistress or survivor in a bigamous relationship does not enjoy the status of marriage, hence she does not get the protection of law for maintenance," Justice Waziri said referring to Supreme Court rulings. The court made it clear that the US citizen, being the legally wedded wife of the businessman, had a better claim to his property over that of the live in partner.
Dealing with the other woman's claim to the house HC noted "her live-in status, assuming to be true, would not confer upon her any better right in law to dislodge the wife's lawful right to the matrimonial home. During the subsistence of a marriage, while there may be silent tolerance of a live-in relationship by the wife, the live-in status doesn't have the approval of law to oust the rightful and legal status of the wife in the matrimony. The live-in would be, at best, an unwanted guest in the wife's matrimonial home."
Setting out the legal position, HC said "a wife's possession of the matrimonial home is a legal and natural corollary to the bond of marriage vis-a-vis a third party or stranger to the matrimony, such as a live-in."
In her suit, the widow informed the court the couple began living in the GK house from 1989. In between when her mother fell ill in the US, she went back and stayed with her till her death, her plea added.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Wife-has-first-right-to-mans-property-HC/articleshow/49249669.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more