Your husband should file declaratory suit that he is absolute owner of property as full consideration was paid by him as is evident from bank transfers made in parents account

2) seek injunction restraining parents from disturbing his possession of house

Hi,

You may file suit in court for specific performance on the basis of transfer of amount by your husband.

Make oral request for getting the refund of the this payment.

In case your oral request fails to be of any help, send a legal notice to your in-laws, calling upon them to forthwith refund the loan that was extended to them by your husband .

You can approach the mediation centre In court of your local jurisdiction.

Hi, since the money was not a loan that was given , therefore unfortunately you cannot claim the money back ..

Hello,

Only way will be to file a case. The case will be filed by your husband. The husband can later request the court to pass direction that father in law produce the bank statement for the dates when the amount was transferred.

Before taking the said action you may send a Legal Notice to the father in law for returning the money.

Regards

Mam your husband has to file a recovery suit showing the transaction given for the investment purpose further claiming the amount back further if husband has no documents then a notice through court can be given to produce the account statements. Further file an application along with the suit to expedite the matter citing husband health,

If your husband had transferred money to his parents without any condition or specifying any purpose in a letter subsequent to the transfer, then it can be deemed that he has sent money for their welfare and maintenance only, even though they are well off financially.

Therefore demanding that money may not be legally enforceable.

However showing it as a credit or loan, he may demand the same by issuing a legal notice, after that he can drag them to court of law for recovery, but remember that this would be valid only for the transactions done upto three years preceding the date of this legal notice.

Consult an advocate in the local for more such ideas.

Dear Madam,

You can file DV case against Parents-in-law only as follows and also files petition under section 91 of Cr.PC calling for all bank accounts records. Further you can stay in matrimonial house as per the provision of DV Act and following judgment of Supreme Court.

PRAYER

HENCE THE APPLICANT HUMBLY PRAYS

A) to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC and punish Respondent No.1 to 3 as per law and extend police protection to the deponent,

B) Pass orders u/s 19, based upon S.17, granting separate residence for herself and her three children at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- and advance of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

C) Pass orders u/s 18, in totality against Respondent No.1 to 3,

D) Pass orders u/s 20(i) granting Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance for applicant and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- each per month to her three children.

E) Pass orders granting Rs. 5,00,000/- for setting up house hold requirements, in granted residence, to make it livable, as the applicant cannot return to the house of Respondent No.1 as he is residing in the house of respondent No. 3, which is legally prohibited,

F) Pass orders granting litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- as the applicant made to wander from pillar to post for getting legal aid to attend the Hon’ble Court, whereas, the Respondent No.1 falsely filed Divorce Petition.

G) The applicant also filed interim application supported by affidavit u/s 23(1) and (2) of D.V.Act,

H) That any other order/s, this Hon’ble Court deems fit, to meet the ends of justice, be passed.

--------------------------------------

DV Shared household under DV Act clarified in 2006 SC judgment

Domestic Violence or DV Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), 2005 was passed by parliament in Aug 2005 and came into force on 26 Oct 2006. The act comes into force when it is notified in a gazette etc, not just when it is passed by parliament.

This old SC judgment of S R Batra vs Taruna Batra case below about what constitutes rights of a wife to live in husband/in-laws house is from Dec 2006 which is just 2 months after DV act came into force. But this judgment is very important since even today there is lot of misunderstanding about rights of a woman on her husband/in-laws house/property. This is especially true of North India or Delhi/NCR region where asking for property/house/plot as a ‘settlement’ in marital dispute is a time-tested strategy being followed. What’s even more surprising is when I get calls about clueless husbands who are unaware of the various laws about Benami transaction, transfer of property act etc and have basically given up on playing the game before it even started. It’s about time that men need to wake up and read a bit about law, or else be willing to lose your (or parents’) hard-earned property in ‘compromise’ or ‘settlement’ because you chose not to read about the law yourselves and instead kept flitting from one advocate to another to give your a ‘solution’ to your matrimonial problem! There are some things a man should fix himself, and his relationship problems are one of them. (Inspired from one of those Tremors movie series dialogues – the actual dialog was that a man should learn to shoot himself and not depend on a hired gun).

Important part of the judgment follows:

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batgra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.

We cannot agree with this submission.

If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband’s in-laws or other relatives.

As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a `shared household’.

No doubt, the definition of `shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.

Full judgment text below

S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006

Author: M Katju

Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5837 of 2006

PETITIONER:

Dear Madam,

You can file Domestic Violence case against your in-laws and get a appropriate relief by filing interim applications in respect of amounts pending in the bank accounts if any along with the following reliefs.

=========================================================================

PRAYER

HENCE THE APPLICANT HUMBLY PRAYS

A) to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC and punish Respondent No.1 to 3 as per law and extend police protection to the deponent,

B) Pass orders u/s 19, based upon S.17, granting separate residence for herself and her three children at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- and advance of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

C) Pass orders u/s 18, in totality against Respondent No.1 to 3,

D) Pass orders u/s 20(i) granting Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance for applicant and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- each per month to her three children.

E) Pass orders granting Rs. 5,00,000/- for setting up house hold requirements, in granted residence, to make it livable, as the applicant cannot return to the house of Respondent No.1 as he is residing in the house of respondent No. 3, which is legally prohibited,

F) Pass orders granting litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- as the applicant made to wander from pillar to post for getting legal aid to attend the Hon’ble Court, whereas, the Respondent No.1 falsely filed Divorce Petition.

G) The applicant also filed interim application supported by affidavit u/s 23(1) and (2) of D.V.Act,

H) That any other order/s, this Hon’ble Court deems fit, to meet the ends of justice, be passed.