LCI Learning
Master the Art of Contract Drafting & Corporate Legal Work with Adv Navodit Mehra. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

uttara (principal)     01 February 2011

property & maintenance

Dear all, i want to know that if property self aquired by hubby, effects the maintennce claimed by child or wife?



 3 Replies

neel (self)     01 February 2011

Good Lord!!

 

Income from the assets/property is taken into consideration and not assets.

Assets merely show the previous capacity but not necessarily the current capacity.

 

Don't expect hubby to sell off the assets and pay it to the wife/kids. Then better stay/stick with the hubby and be loyal to him.

 

This is my frank opinion and answer. There are many who answer...a few ensure the feminist convenience and tell loop holes. But if the wife starts 'eyeing' on hubby's property and for a share therein, then its really unfair!!

 

if you expect sympathetic feminist answers, then wait for few  'XYZ Of Law's to answer suitable to your expectations.

Guest (Guest)     01 February 2011

Dear Uttara,

While granting the permanent alimony under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 18 of HAMA and Section 125 Cr.P.C., husband's self acquired property is taken into consideration while quantifying the maintenance, but distribution of such property between the estranged couples has not happened.

With the proposed introduction of the ground of "irretrivable breakdown of marriage" in Hindu Marriage Act, where the liberty is being given to obtain divorce without showing any fault on the opposite spouse, there is a wide spread demand from the women's organisations that if such amendment will be made,  while granting permanent alimony, the partition of the self acquired / ancestral property (comes to the share of the husband) shall be provided to the divorced wife.

Prabhakar (Advocate-Delhi)

(M)9958670740

e-mail i.d. karlprabhakar@gmail.com

1 Like

Jamai Of Law (propra)     01 February 2011

Adv prabhakar ji has worded it correctly.

 

Share in property of husband, as demanded by woman's organisations, ............provided woman is a respondent and not the petitioner...........otherwise...at least 1 in 10 husband-respondents would take extreme measures probably.

 

It would be even more draconian than 498a if such a right is availed to women-petitioner's of IRBM.

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register