While the state enacts laws to protect the weaker sections of society, in keeping with the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution, it has yet to provide for a situation where the conflict is between rights of two protected groups.
In yet another case where a woman, as a daughter-in-law, and senior citizens, as parents-in-laws, were in conflict, the court has upheld the ownership rights of the seniors.
In one judgment (copies just received) from the city civil court, the daughter-in-law Preeti and son Neeraj Arora have been restrained from entering upon the home of Devendra Kumar, Neeraj’s father.
“This is one of the many similar cases I have appeared for in the last few months. A daughter-in-law has no rights to the in-law’s home unless her husband has a share in it,” said advocate Anita Trivedi.
“The couple lives there at the invitation of the parents. In case of a conflict, if the true owner of the house withdraws the invitation, the couple would have no right or remedy against their ouster. The old couple has a right to live in peace in their home.”
Trivedi said that the house was bought by Devendra when Neeraj was a child. Neeraj had neither contributed towards its purchase nor had a share in the property.
Preeti therefore could not claim a right of residence there; especially since Neeraj and she were estranged and seeking to divorce each other.
Devendra told court that the young couple ‘constantly quarrelled, creating undue stress for my wife who is ill and I’.
However, often such protective rights are misused to gain undue advantage. Recalling a similar incident, advocate Harjeet Kaur, who deals with women’s rights, said, “The question that arise from such judgments which naturally protects a senior citizen owner’s legal rights is, where do the deserted wives go?”
“It is always possible that the parents may collude with their son to help him rid himself of a duty towards a wife he no longer wants.”
Raina Mehta (name changed), one such wife who is in the midst of divorce proceedings and is ousted by her in-laws from their flat said that she agreed to set up home with her in-laws so that they could continue to live with their only son, her husband Kirti.
“Though we could afford a separate home, I did not want to separate Kirti and his parents. To please them I even gave up my job,” said Raina.
“As soon as Kirti had filed the divorce suit, he moved out of our home and his parents obtained orders restraining both of us from living in my in-laws home.”
Raina said that after she moved out, Kirti apparently moved back into his parents’ home. Raina is homeless and has to go through endless litigation against Kirti to get him to do his duty by her and give her a home.
“If I had insisted on living separately, I would not be in this predicament. I would have the right of residence in a house owned by Kirti,” regrets Raina.
Source: Diligent Media Corporation Ltd
Forget yourself for others, and others will never forget you.
No comments:
Post a Comment