Member (Account Deleted)
28 May 2012 at 22:48
My wife filed a case 125 cr.p.c for maintenance last year. Court passed interim order for Rs.1200/- for wife and Rs.800/- for minor child. I have been paying the said amount regularly.
Now in first week of January 2012 court has passed the final order. My wife's petition is declined and dismissed and court had allowed the Rs.1200/- for minor son.
My wife petition is decline on the ground that she refuses to join my company without reasonable cause.
now my wife filed revision in high court.
My query : pl tell me experts what approx amount will court grant to my wife
B.swarnalatha
28 May 2012 at 16:57
i am very sorry and hurt by the reply of the lawyer sudhir kumar saying that it is a psychiatric case,this is not the thing that experts should think and say they have to critically analyse with lot of empathy and give a positive note, i can only tell him that to get proof we can go for a video recording and then let us see whether it harassment by in laws or not. i am gold medallist and i never expected a cheap reply from sudhir kumar. when all the earlier advocates have advised me to file a police complaint i am wondering asto why sudhir kumar has no perspective of thinking at all.
Muralidharan
28 May 2012 at 16:01
28th May 2012
Dear Forum Members
Mr.A from Chennai, Tamilnadu, had expired leaving behind his wife, one son and three daughters. The only son and all the three daughters are married. Mr.A has left behind the following properties.
(1) Two immovable properties registered in his name
(2) Jewellery Business
(Gold Jewellery business is being run in the name of deceased Mr.A – Silver Jewellery business is being run in the name of his surviving wife – separate sales tax registration is available and both of them are IT assessees).
Apart from the above there is a third immovable property. However the said property is registered in the name of surviving wife of Mr.A.
The family of Mr.A has now decided to divide and share among themselves the properties and business left behind by Mr.A, as per details given below:
1. Two immovable properties that are in the name of the deceased (Mr.A) would be transferred to his only Son. The surviving wife and the three daughters will have no rights or any claim whatsoever in respect of these two immovable properties. However in respect of one property in which some portion has been let out on rent a survival interest has to be created in favour of the wife of the deceased, so that during her life time she would be receiving some income by way of rent. This is in order to protect her future and she could survive without depending on anybody.
2. The Jewellery business (both gold and silver jewellery business) will also be transferred in the name of the son and he would continue to run the business. All the assets and liabilities of such business including the income / loss, stock-in-trade…etc will rest with the only son. The surviving wife of Mr.A and the three daughters shall have no rights or any claim whatsoever over the said business.
3. The immovable property in the name of the surviving wife of Mr.A would be shared among the three daughters. The son will have no claim whatsoever in respect of this property. The surviving wife who is the owner of this property will transfer this property in favour of her three daughters. The surviving wife will not have any claim over this property once the transfer is effected in favour of the three daughters.
4. Personal Jewellery and Silver articles if any available with the surviving wife of Mr.A shall be divided and shared equally among the Son and Three Daughters.
In order to give a legal force for the decision taken the family will be taking the advise and professional support of an advocate / chartered accountant.
However my query to the forum members out of interest is as follows:
a. What type of document has to be prepared and registered for transfer of the two immovable properties (which are at present registered in the name of the deceased Mr.A) in favour of the Son. Whether a partition deed is enough or any other document is required to be registered. What will be the stamp duty and fees payable to the registration authorities for registering the document.
b. How to create a survival interest in favour of the surviving wife of the deceased in respect of a portion of rental income from one property.
c. What type of document has to be prepared and registered for transfer of the third immovable property (which is at present registered in the name of the surviving wife) in favour of the three daughters. Whether a settlement deed is enough or any other document is required to be registered. What will be the stamp duty and fees payable to the registration authorities for registering the document.
d. What type of document has to be prepared and registered for recording that the three daughters and surviving wife shall not have any claim whatsoever in the “gold jewellery business” which would be taken over and run by the only son.
e. The silver jewellery business, which was so far being run in the name of the surviving wife of Mr.A, is to be transferred in the name of the Son or in the name of the wife of the Son (Daughter in Law). What type of document has to be prepared and registered for recording that the Transferor (surviving wife) as well as the three daughters shall not have any claim whatsoever in the said “silver jewellery business”.
f. What type of document has to be prepared and registered for creating evidence in respect of equal sharing of the personally jewellery and silver articles if any available with the surviving wife of Mr.A. This sharing will be done only after her life.
I would be grateful to the forum members for your kind reply.
With regards
R. Muralidharan
mahesh
28 May 2012 at 12:49
already victim of 498a in retaliation of divorce ,has been managing (refusing)court summons for the past 6 months. so want to fight atleast divorce on home turf
Law Querier
28 May 2012 at 10:23
Husband and wife were living in rural area. Husband and Wife married and registered their marriage. After some years, they mutually agreed for divorce. Advocates in rural area made an affidavit on Rs.500 stamp paper about agreement of both to separate mutually each other. They had not appeared for MCD and not having a decree of divorce from court.
My question is, 1) is this type of agreement is applicable in law? Is it legal or illegal? 2) Can Husband/Wife marry again on this agreement? If they marry then he/she can put in trouble? Is it legal or illegal?
osho amar prem
28 May 2012 at 00:09
sirji .
sir i already won custody from karnataka, and the execution was
transfered to punjab.. executeion was dissmiss in default once but
now i again to took up. Her petition to setaside my order is also
dismissed, Her transfer application is also dismissed from karnatka
to Punjab by supreme court.
and she got married as per her brother( mentioned on summons sent to
her ) and i am unable to trace her address.. and the child are with
her parents and she stay with her husband parents they too are untraceable.
And during my conselling she was given Rs. 1000 to bring child ( all written in consellor order ) to
conselling but she did not return to conselling since then she got
married and untraceable
kindly help..
thanx and regards
amar pune
which option
1. get paper publication by execution court and get executed
2. file habeas corpus and get executed boz trial and transfer of trial is already dismissed since one year back...
3. basic case at karnataka trial over only execution at punjab.
This order of habeas and corpus accepted and granted custody.. is
Allahabad High Court
Master Manveer Khera vs Manjeet Singh Khera Alias Makhan ... on 9 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 All 217
Bench: G Tripathi
ORDER
1. Smt. Gurpriya Khera, the mother of the minor child Master Manveer
Khera has filed this petition praying for a writ in the nature of
Habeas Corpus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to produce the
petitioner before the Court and hand over the custody of the child to
the mother, Smt. Gurpriya Khera.
2. Admittedly, Smt. Gurpriya Khera was married to late Lt. Mandeep
Singh Khera (Indian Navy) on 6-10-90. The child Master Manveer Khera
was born out of this union on 17-11-91. On 3-2-96, in a car accident,
the husband of Smt. Gurpriya died and she also received injuries. The
child Master Manveer Khera was taken up by respondents No. 1 to 3, who
are the in-laws of Smt. Gurpriya Khera. It is said that Smt. Gurpriya
Khera also received multiple fractures in that car accident and she
fell unconscious. She was initially admitted to a Hospital at Rajali.
From there, she was shifted to the Military Hospital, Madras and from
there, she was discharged on 15-3-96 and brought to Chandigarh by her
father and eversince she has been residing there. Without caring for
the injured Smt. Gurpriya, the respondents took away the child Master
Manveer Khera on 7-2-19% from the hospital and brought him to
Shahjahanpur (U.P.) and eversince the child is residing with
respondents 1 to 3. Smt. Gurpriya made repeated efforts to have the
custody of the child. But she has failed.
3. She is about 26 years' old and educated upto B.A. She belongs to a
good family of status. Her father is a retired Army Officer and her
mother is a Co-ordinator in Guru Nanak Public School, Chandigarh. Smt.
Gurpriya Khera is in a very sound financial position and can took
after the betterment of the child and can bring conducive atmosphere,
which may be helpful in the future development of his. personality.
She is a legal guardian also, whereas, respondents 1 to 3 are not,
during herlife time. In the meantime, it is said that the respondents
are prosecuting a divorce petition, allegedly filed by the husband of
Smt. Gurpriya in the Court of Shahjahanpur even afler his death. This
is wrong. Her husband never filed a divorce petition against her. They
have been leading peaceful and conducively happy married life.
4. She has heard that respondents No. 1 to 3 are likely to escape to
Canada, where the brother of respondent No. 1 resides. The petitioner
has sent a written request on 5-6-96 to the Canadian High Commission
and the American Embassy so that they may not be allowed to take away
her child. Under these circumstances, she has alleged that she can
watch the interest of the minor in a better manner.
5. In the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 1 has alleged that
even during the life time of late Lt. Mandeep Singh Khera, the husband
of Smt. Gurpriya, there was serious differences between the husband
and wife and the respondents were looking after the child. The husband
was compelled to file a divorce suit in the Court at Shahjahanpur
against Smt. Gurpriya Khera. Allegedly she admitted the claim (which
has been denied by her). It has been alleged that the grandfather of
the child is a retired officer. He was pos ted asaSenior Manager, BHEL
and got a large package of retirement benefits. He has agricultural
land in Punjab as well as Shahjahanpur. He has a shop at Poona. Smt.
Gurpriya's father is a retired territorial Army Officer. Her mother is
a school teacher. Smt. Gurpriya is not in a perfect mental state
having no love and affection for the child. This way the best interest
of the child can be served only while remaining with respondents.
6. It is not disputed that the child is residing with respondents.
After the death of her husband, Smt. Gurpriya has received a large
package of retirement benefits (death dues) and is in a sound
financial position. This does not mean that the respondents' financial
position is not sound.
7. Under these circumstances, the Court has to weigh the contention of
the parties in order to ensure the best possible care and welfare of
the child.
8. There is a well-known scriptural jewel (Hindi matter)
It means that bad sons are bom infrequently although, but bad mother
is yet to be born.
9. In this case, it is not disputed that Smt.--Gurpriya has no
adversarial interest with the child. It is also not disputed that she
is a graduate and young lady of 26 years and has not remarried. So
from all considerations, she is the best protector of the minors'
interest.
10. There is another jewel of invaluable nature. (Hindi matter)
The mother, father and friends are natural well-wishers of a person.
Others think of the welfare of the person only when they have some
ulterior benefits to gain. This way, mother being the natural guardian
of me child, has the best claimupon him. Even according to Hindu Law,
in the list of Guardians, the mother comes only after the father.
11. Myattention has been invited toaDivision Bench Ruling of this
Court in the case of Vinayak Goyal v. Prem Prakash, 1981 All LJ 752.
In para 11, it has been held as follows :--
"In the case of a minor, his detention would be treated as illegal and
unlawful if he is detained by any person against the wishes of the
guardian (in this case Gurpriya) who is entitled in law to have his
custody.....
In the instant case holding back of the child by his grandfather and
grandmother amounted to illegal and unlawful delention and as such,
the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus"
12. In paragraph 14, it was also observed as follows :--
".....The law is well settled that the writ of habeas corpus would be
maintainable for the custody of a child despite the alternative remedy
of filing an application under the Guardians and Wards Act."
Therefore, the contention of Sri Asthana is not sound that since the
petitions under the Guardians and Wards as well as Hindu Marriage Act
(Divorce petition) are pending in the Shahjahanpur court, this Court
should permpt a decision on facts by those courts.
13. In para 18, it was observed as follows:--
".....In the instant case, there is nothing to doubt that well being,
education and happiness of the petitioner-minor lies in selecting his
mother over grandfather and grand-mother. The child is 8 years of age.
Mother's protection for such achild is indispensable. There cannot be
any other protection which will be equal in measure and substance to
that of the mother in such circumstances."
That was a case similar to one before me. As the learned counsel Sri
Asthana could not show me that the law has changed after this
judgment, either by this High Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
therefore, this has to be treated as a final position of law in the
present case.
14. The primary consideration, is, always, admittedly, in such cases,
to see as to whether best interest of the child can be protected, by
the petitioner or the respondents. The respondents are aged over 60
years and onward. They do not possess that much agility as Smt.
Gurpriya can She is a young lady. She can toil with the child for his
betterment. She can devote more time to the child. She can educate him
and also look after him in a better position, as she is, admittedly, a
very educated lady. Her mother is also a teacher whereas, the
respondents are old people. They cannot devote that much of time
towards the child. May, after few years they shall themselves need
protection and care from others.
15. It is not disputed that best possible educational facilities are
available in Chandigarh, whereas such facilities cannot be even dreamt
of at Shahjahanpur, either in the city or in the rural areas where the
respondents have farm and other properties. Hence from this point of
view, the study atmosphere of the child at Chandigarh will be more
conducive towards the betterment of the child than that of his
residence at Shahjahanpur under the care of the respondents. This does
not mean that I want to say that respondents have no love and
affection of the child. They have all the love and affection for him.
But in degree as well as in quatity, it cannot be equated with that of
Smt. Gurpriya. Therefore, from this norm also, Smt. Gurpriya stands in
a better position to have the custody of the child.
16. After receipt of the post-retirement/death package, Smt.
Gurpriya's financial position is very sound. Even her parents are in a
better position to help her as and when she needs their protection.
So, it cannot be said that on financial consideration, she stands in a
weaker position than that of the respondents. Rather, I find that Smt.
Gurpriya is in a much better position than respondents to look after
the welfare of the child. The pendency of the proceedings in
Shahjahanpur Court, cannot mean that Smt. Gurpriya is in any way less
competent to look after the child's welfare.
17. Every person must have some solace in life. A young lady gets much
solace in the company of her husband and child similarly, the child
gets solace as well as protection and care under the custody of his
mother. By God's grace or otherwise, Smt. Gurpriya has turned into a
widow due to untimel death of her husband in an accident. So she has
no'solace or love from her husband now. Then the only solace available
to her is her child. If he too js taken away from her, she will be
compelled to live a life of desertion and life long agony and the
attainment of motherhood is the best contribution a lady makes towards
the society as well as the nation and in further educating him looking
afterhim and making him a better citizen, she plays a determined,
positive role. These are not disputed things. Therefore, even in the
interest of justice to the society as well as Smt. Gurpriya herself,
apart from the interest of the child, I find that there cannot be any
better heaven for the child on earth than the lap of his mother under
whose benigh guardianship, he will be able to become a better citizen
of the nation.
18. I do not find that there is anything on the record to prove that
Smt. Gurpriya is, in any way, disqualified or less qualified to look
after the child's welfare.
19. Taking all the facts into consideration, I find that Smt. Gurpriya
is entitled to the custody of the child.
20. Master Manveer Khera, the child, has been brought by the
respondents and is present in court. Although, the child does not want
to go with his mother as he has been living with the respondents only
for nearly a year. During this period, he has not been able to meet
his mother. He is a minor of about 5 years age. He has no knowledge
about his welfare himself. Simply because he does not want to go with
his mother Smt. Gurpriya Khera, the Court shall not deprive Smt.
Gurpriya Khera of her legal rights as well as pious duties towards her
child. Hence dis-inclination of the child himself to go with his
mother Smt. Gurpriya Khera, will not be a factor to be counted while
determining this petition.
21. Thus the petition is allowed with cosls. It is ordered that the
respondents shall hand over the child to Smt. Gurpriya, his mother,
immediately and she shall be entitled to, take away the child at her
residential place at Chandigarh. If need be, S.S.P. Allahabad is
directed to provide adequate protection to the mother Smt. Gurpriya
for carriage of the child by her upto Chandigarh.
22. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel prays for permission to fife
an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
23. His oral prayer is allowed.
24. Petition allowed.
badmanaban
27 May 2012 at 22:43
my mother had othree son all are married.
elder son had no issue died leaing behind widow daughter in law.
my mother had three house/she excuted the settlement deed in faouar of her two son.
she didnotgive the properties to widow daughter in law (no son/daughter)
my lawers says the properties came from my mothers father and it become aboulte properties so widow daughter in can;t claim for maintancee from mother in law
shelly
27 May 2012 at 16:12
sir i want ur favour om my client shilpa....case is:-
ajay and shilpa got marriedin the year 2000.At the time of marriage ajay was working at kangra and getting rs 4500/month.Whereas shilpa was working with MNC and was earning rs 7000/month and other perks at the same place.subsequently ajay got a lucrative job in delhi with his sallery rs 10000.after joining new job he requested his wife to resign her job and move over to delhi but the request was refused by shilpa on one pretext or other.she thought it was necesseryfor her to continue the job as the income from the husbands sallery is not suffecient to maintain the family.further dispite marriage subsisting in the year 2000,the couple was not having a child.yhough shilga earliar at her insistance and iniatitave had got her pregnency terminated thrice while ajay was anxious for child.shilpa was of the openion that in the early year of her carrer and lookig to the nature of her job she may b not able to look after her child properly.....being upset with the tern of events in the martial life.ajay files a petitionu/s 9 of HMA and alternatevily praps for divorce on the ground of CRUELTY. Shilpa contends that she has the right of equality under art 14 of the constitution to continue her job. Further to have a child at the instance of her husband will be voilative of acr 21 of the constitution,right to personal liberty.
osho amar prem
27 May 2012 at 15:37
sir, i won child custody ( BOYS 12 AND 9MYEARS ) in 2009 exparta, and filed for execution, but the court denied boz she challanged, but her appeal was at last dismissed, and my application was dissmissed in default boz my lawyer did not attened the court, but the order or hearing sheet did not mentioned that she challanged ( it was judge trick to delay my execution verbaly boz no record was there to say she challanged ) But now i again reopened the case, but when summons was send to her residence, Her brother said " she do not stay at this residence and she gone to her in-laws home ( i am already divorceed 2008 ) she and her parents also took my sons I do not know there were ABOUT. CAN I FILE HABEAS CORPUS.. ON HER AND HER PARENTS.. AND ALSO THAT HER NEW HUSBAND CAN HARM MY SONS.. OR REALY ON EXECUTION COURT. WILL THE HIGH COURT HANDOVER MY SONS TO ME OR I HAVE TO GO FOR PAPAER PUBLICATION AND GET EXECUTED.. WHAT WILL BE BEST... KINLY HELP..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Lawyer in bangalore
Hi everyone! Can any one suggest me a good lawyer at reasonable cost? thanks