India Black Money

Speech on Black Money in Indian Lok Sabha.


Bahu can’t occupy in-laws’ own property: Delhi high court

Bahu can’t occupy in-laws’ own property: Delhi high court


NEW DELHI: A daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes, the Delhi high court has held in a significant order.

Justice A K Pathak in a recent verdict, made it clear that a self-acquired property doesn’t fall under the definition of a “shared household” enunciated in the Domestic Violence Act and a daughter in law can’t enforce her right in such a property.

In fact, HC went a step further, holding that even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents against their consent.

“Daughter-in-law cannot assert her rights, if any, in the property of her parents-in-law wherein her husband has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in such a house of her parents-in-law against their consent and wishes. In my view, even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents; against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house occupies the same as a gratuitous licensee and if such licence is revoked, he has to vacate the said property,” the court noted in its order.

HC was hearing an appeal by the daughter-in-law against a trial court’s verdict directing her to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to her estranged father-in-law. In her plea in HC the woman said she is a legally wedded wife and has a right to live in the property from where her father-in-law wants her evicted.

She claimed that the property was purchased out of joint family funds. Accusing the father-in-law and husband of harassing her for dowry, she informed HC that she is living separately from her husband due to matrimonial discord and divorce proceedings are on. Under DV Act, the property is a shared household where she has the right to reside, the wife maintained.

But the father in law through advocate Prabhjit Jauhar told HC that he is sole owner of the self-acquired property. Jauhar also convinced the court that the property was not purchased from joint family funds and his son had no share in it.

The father-in-law furnished before the court proof that he disowned his son in 2010 who has since then been living separately.

Justice Pathak concluded that the legal position “which can be culled out from the above reports is that the daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self -acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes more so when her husband has no independent right therein nor is living there, as it is not a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 17(1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”

HC also took into account lack of evidence to show that suit property was purchased from joint family funds.


Hamid Gul brainwashing pakistanis

Hamid Gul ( ex general of pak army )

if this is the kind of people who are advising/leading pakistan then whoever dreams of peace in south asia region is a fool.

Smooth swindler in police net

This is what today’s abla nari is doing and indian politicians are still living in stone age assuming that women are being victimised and passing draconian laws like 498A, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT and PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION ACT recently. Crooked educated women will misuse the law passed recently where a lady can claim 50% of the property of her husband just after getting married formally even if she NEVER had any intention of staying in the marriage.

NOW this bill will encourage men to ask for HUGE sums of money and PROPERTY to secure their and their family’s property and assets.

This will increase in the demand of DOWRY by to be married boys and their families.

I am not against empowering women but while empowering women we have to be careful that nobody else is victimised ( because of these laws it will be innocent women who will be victimised and not empowered ) .

Smooth swindler in police net
Rajwinder, posing as an NRI, would dupe men after marriage Anirudh Gupta

Ferozepur, May 29 After having duped five grooms and fleeced several youths on the pretext of taking them abroad, Rajwinder Kaur, pretending to be a Canadian citizen, has been finally arrested along with her brother Hardial Singh and accomplice Jagsir Singh.

Jewellery, cash and three duplicate passports were seized from the trio. Rajwinder and her brother belonged to Gandiwind village under the Harike police station .

Paramraj Singh, DIG, Ferozepur Range, said despite several cases of fraud against Rajwinder in Batala, Mansa, Kotkapura and Samana, she had remained elusive till now.

Rajwinder would entice rich farmers, promising them that she would take them abroad after marriage. She would later dump the innocent victims after having swindled them of their money, the DIG said.

He said till date, five such cases had come to light. Rajwinder’s latest victim was Kulwinder Singh of Kotwal village, said HS Mann, SSP. He said after marriage, Rajwinder began to tempt her husband’s kin who were keen on settling abroad. “A smooth operator, she did not let anyone in the family get an inkling about her intentions,” the SSP said, adding that she swindled Rs 5 crore in this manner. She took some of them and deserted them there.

Swindler’s list of crimes

  • In 2005 at Hargobindpur police station for Rs 6 lakh fraud
  • In 2006 at Ramdas police station for Rs 3 lakh fraud
  • In 2007 at Kotkapura police station for Rs 3,20 lakh; and at Goindwal police station for 5 lakh fraud
  • In 2009 at Samana police station for Rs 12 lakh fraud
  • In 2010 at the Sadar Kotkapura and Badhni Kalan police stations for Rs 28 lakh fraud


Link Here :

Divorced woman to get 50% share in husband’s property

Now the govt of INDIA has decided to legalise the extortion and terrorism by greedy and unscrupulous women and her greedy parents by passing this legislation of giving 50% of the assets even if the woman is the culprit for the failure of marriage.

she will be entitled to 50% of the property of her husband if she marries and even refuses to go with her husband immediately after marriage. Genuine girls who want to make their marriage successful will be the ones who will suffer in this.

Divorced woman to get 50% share in husband’s property

Aditi Tandon/TNS

New Delhi, May 17 For the first time in the history of marriage laws in India, women and children have been given definite rights in the residential property of men in the event of a divorce.

Taking up amendments to the Marriage Laws Amendment Bill, 2010, pending for discussion in the Rajya Sabha, where it was introduced last week, the Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today decided to make a clear provision in the law that an equal share (50 pc) in the residential property of a man will go to his wife and children in case of a divorce. The wife will have to move an application seeking the share.

Women and children will have an equal right in the residential property acquired by a man, whether acquired before or after the marriage, as the Cabinet today omitted from the Amendment Bill the expression “property acquired during the subsistence of marriage”.

The old Bill gave divorced women a right in man’s property, but did not state the quantum. Women activists felt stating the quantum would ensure justice to women who have to take care of their children and provide for them.

Not just that, the Cabinet further amended the Bill granting women and children rights in the movable assets of the man in case of a divorce. Instead of fixing the quantum of share of women and children in movable assets, the Cabinet decided to let the courts of law decide the share, depending on the “living standard of the wife”.

The relevant amendment in the Bill reads, “Pay such gross sum or share of movable property towards settlement of claim of wife as the courts deem fit considering the living standard of the wife”.

In another important development, the Cabinet today amended the Bill to ensure that the six-month cooling-off period (which couples need to spend together before moving the joint motion for a divorce) would be reduced only if both the man and the woman concerned move an application to lessen it.

The amendment has been made following demands from women rights activists who said a man could force a divorce on a wife if the application for reducing the cooling-off period is not mandated to be moved by both parties. In the earlier Bill, one of the two could move such an application.

The amendments follow an assurance from Law Minister Salman Khurshid, who deferred his reply to discussion on the Bill in the Rajya Sabha where several MPs had raised these concerns and sought that the Bill be made woman-friendly.

WHAT THEY GET n Woman and children will have 50% share in the residential property of a man in case of a divorce n The wife will have to move an application seeking the share in such cases n It will not matter whether the property was acquired before or after the marriage n Women and children will also have right in the movable assets of the man n The quantum of share in such cases will be determined by the court


Link Here :

Woman double-crosses court

Woman double-crosses court for son’s custody

New Delhi, February 25 The Delhi High Court has issued a contempt of court notice to a woman for foxing a magistrate into awarding her son’s custody to her, hiding the fact that another court had given his custody to her husband.

A bench headed by Justice Vipin Sanghi said, “She is guilty of contempt of court as she has abused the process of the court, calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice. She has made mockery of the judicial process.”

The court ordered a contempt of court notice to be issued to her.

The court order on February 21 came on a plea of the woman’s husband who pointed out to the court that his son was in his custody according to the order of the guardian court in September 2010. But, he told the court, his wife one day took away the child from his school and secured a magisterial court’s order for his custody under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, hiding the guardianship judge’s order.

For disobeying the court, Justice Sanghi imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the woman and directed that half the money would go to the Delhi Legal Services Committee, while the other half will go to her husband.

“The respondent (wife) is guilty of disobeying the orders dated September 30, 2010, and April 5, 2011, passed by the guardianship judge, by removing the child from the custody of the petitioner and by taking the said child into her own custody,” the court statement said.

The high court, granting the child’s custody to his father, also set aside the order of metropolitan magistrate that gave the child’s custody to the woman. — IANS

Link Here :

2nd marriage no ground to deny child’s custody: Court

2nd marriage no ground to deny child’s custody: Court

NEW DELHI: A man’s  second marriage cannot be a ground for denying him custody of his child, a Delhi court has said while granting guardianship of a 10-year-old boy to his father who remarried after his wife’s death.

The boy had been living with his maternal grandparents since his mother’s death. Guardian judge  Gautam Manan rejected the grandparents’ contention that it would not be in the child’s interest to live with his stepmother.

“The second marriage of the petitioner cannot be held to be a disability,” the court said, noting that the man’s elder daughter was living with him and being brought up well by her stepmother.

“There is no evidence that the stepmother of the child has maltreated the sister of the minor… (who) is getting a good education,” the judge said, allaying the grandparents’ fears.

‘Dad can impart moral values to child’

The court said the man, a resident of Begumpur in south Delhi, “being the natural father of the minor, is more likely to impart moral and ethical values in the child”. It added the company of the child’s elder sister will be “fruitful” in his growth.

The man, earning Rs 12,000 a month, had approached the court seeking permanent custody of his son, who had been living with his maternal grandparents since he was seven months old.

Agreeing with his arguments, the court said the grandparents themselves were old and had to support their five unmarried children, none of whom had come forward to take responsibility for bringing up the boy.

The court also said the aged couple had failed to demonstrate how they were ensuring the boy got a good education. It said there was a huge age difference between the aged couple and the child, due to which they could face difficulty in taking care of him.

The grandparents have been granted visitation rights to the child twice a month.

Link Here :