• Sister-in-law and her father black mail with section 498 A

Hello sir/Madem 
My elder brother got married to a village girl 1.6 y ago .She belongs to a former family near by our city . From day one of marriage she never behave like a married women . Never cook , never wash dresses ,never touch/fold  even bed sheet after woke up at 9 AM daily . Never treat my parents as in-laws . She always torture my brother about property and land . Not even spending time with my brother until gets property on her name . Mother is a sugar patient  ,once she down from sofa due to low sugar . sister-in-law sitting in front of my mom only ,but didn't help her working up/giving some sweet  untill my father comes from bazar (after two-three hours later). My mother almost was in coma . Now my brother has to stop his job to take care of my parents , as his wife in plan of killing my parents emotionally ,mentally ,behave like make their BP (my both patents have High BP ). trying to break lockers and find home properties documents.She made my parents to feel insecure in our home it self . My parents go any relatives home , sister-in-law bring her family friends and making new sense things at our home .if my bother say something , she calling her father ,he is an real idiot . he started blackmailing like  will  go to policy station and will put harassment case ,will send all to jail , etc . always have eye on property . she is not letting to have kids and torturing my brother like anything . My parents and brother seeing really mental torture .She is not ready to go out from our home and stay with my brother even if he is ready go and stay away . so that we have we can have hope that my parents will not die in her hands and by her torture . her father not letting her to go out ,bringing local people and making new sense ,blackmailing  with 498A and will kill you all etc . I AM FEELING TO KILL BOTH OF THEM .we are three brothers. elder is facing this problem with sister-in-law. second one is in abroad , my self in hyderabad . always worrying about parents and brother . he was very innocent . father was retired Govt employee .She is not going out and torturing parents by sitting our home . if we proceed for diverse , again thats a point for them to demand more money/property . we have only one home ,constructed recently after my father retirement and taking personal loans . elder one was not spent even a single rupee since he does not have any job . All money from my father and we two brother only spent . now they are living with my father pension and rent . they have eye on that house and doing like this . 

we cant send her out home with my brother (she and her father not willing to step out ) and not giving diverse . when nobody was there she will say that she dont want to stay give dowry money and throw taali . when her father and relatives come ,she will say that she wanted to stay here but in-laws and husband didn't wanted /letting her to stay .playing dual role with duel tongue . (3 L dowry money was in bank with my bro and her name only , we didnt touch that ) 

how can i send her with my brother to stay out in different home   , or how can we get diverse where she is not ready to give .Feeling us to give and get money and property .How can we save my parents and our self from blackmailing with 498A .( i see in gogle 99% 498A section was misused only like these people ).Please suggest
Asked 8 months ago in Family Law from United States
Religion: Hindu
Hi, your brother can file a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and one more thing in the recent High Court Judgement says that  if the daughter-in-law refuse to take care of the father-in-law and mother-in-law, it amounts to cruelty.

2. Ask your brother to live in separate home so your sister-in-law also move there, after few months he can return to his parents house.

3. With my experience i will tell you all most all 498/A case end with acquittal. If she lodge a complaint then first take Anticipatory bail and then contest the case on merits.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4104 Answers
133 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
1) record her threats

2) install CCTV cameras in the house 

3) yiur father is absolute owner of the house and can ask son and daughter in law to leave the house 

4) if they refuse to vacate obtain court orders to direct them to vacate portion of house in their possession 

5) number of judgments on the said issue 

6) in case any false 498A case filed obtain AB 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23116 Answers
1214 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 3072 OF 2007

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1194 OF 2007

Smtl Hemaxi Atul Joshi … Appellant

(Org.Deft.No.1)

Vs.

Smt. Muktaben Karsandas Joshi & Anr. Respondents

(Resp.No.1 – org.Plff
& Resp.No.2 – org.

Defendant nO.2)

Mr.Jaydev Trivedi, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Nitin Vhatkar, Advocate, a/w G.S.Hiranandani,Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Prajit S.Manjarekar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

DATE: 5th December,2007.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Admittedly, the appellant, who is defendant No.1, was married to respondent No.2 sometime in the year 1996 and out of this wedlock, they have two children. After the marriage, they were living in the suit house with the other family  members. The relations between the husband and wife got strained and the Marriage Petition for divorce was filed by respondent No.2-husband against the present appellant before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, who is the mother of respondent No.2 and mother-in-law of the appellant, claims that she is the exclusive owner of the suit house and her son and daughter-in-law after the marriage, were living with her in her house. However, in the year 2002, the appellant and respondent No.2 purchased another flat at a short distance from her house and intermittently they also used to live there. Respondent No.1 claims that she and other family members had noticed illicit relationship of the appellant with some other person. This was objected to by her and therefore relations were strained. According to her, the daughter-in-law went to her parents’ place at Surat in May 2007 after the Divorce Petition was filed. However, in the last week of May, 2007, she came back to Mumbai and forcibly entered into the plaintiff’s house and started harassing the plaintiff and her family members. She also abused the plaintiff in filthy language and assaulted her. In view of these circumstances, she filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into and/or occupying and/or remaining in occupation of the suit premises belonging to her. She also took out a Notice of Motion seeking temporary injunction of the same nature. The application was opposed by the present appellant on the ground that the suit house is the matrimonial home and she is entitled to reside there in view of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in brief, “Domestic Violence Act”).

3. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and rejected the contention of the defendant No.1-appellant that it is a shared household for the appellant. The learned Judge held that the suit house being the exclusive property of the mother-in-law/plaintiff, the daughter-in-law cannot claim any legal right of residence. In the result, the Notice of Motion was allowed and the temporary injunction was granted against the defendant No.1-appellant. Hence, she has preferred the present Appeal.

4. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order, it becomes clear that the suit house was purchased by the plaintiff/mother-in-law sometime in 1975 and, admittedly, the suit house stands in her name alone. There is nothing to show that it is a joint family property of the plaintiff, her husband and the children. Admittedly, it is not the house belonging to the appellant or her husband. The learned trial Court relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court in S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118 wherein the

provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to be considered.

5. Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act provides protection of residence to the aggrieved person.

Section 19(a) reads as under :-

“19. Residence orders (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order –

(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared

household;”

Under Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act, “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent”. . Section 2(q) defines “respondent” as any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act.

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the

male partner. . Section 2(s) defines “shared household” as follows :-

“shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or  along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either

jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”

5. The question is whether merely because the appellant/daughter-in-law was living along with husband in the household of her mother-in-law, she would get a legal right of residence in the house of mother-in-law. Admittedly, the appellant and her husband-respondent NO.2 had purchased another flat in December, 2002 jointly. It is not disputed that intermittently the husband and wife used to sleep and stay in that house. That house is at a walking distance of about 5 minutes from the suit house. The appellant can claim legal right in that house firstly, because it is the joint property of herself and her husband and secondly, because she was intermittently living or at least staying in that house along with her husband and children. As far as the suit house is concerned, it is

not the property in which her husband has got any legal right and therefore she cannot claim that the suit house is the shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act. After referring to the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and some case law, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra, observed as follows in para

16 of the Judgment :-

“16. There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.” From this, it is clear that the wife may have rights only against the husband and not against father-in-law or mother-in-law. Their Lordships further observed as

follows :-

“28. 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 is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No.2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a ‘shared household’.

The facts in the case of S.R.Batra and the present matter are almost similar. Taking into consideration the legal position and the facts, the appellant cannot

claim any legal right of residence in the house belonging to her mother-in-law. She can claim such right only in the house of her husband and incidentally in the present case, she and her husband jointly own another house at a short distance from the suit house. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court Judge was justified in passing the order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from entering into

the suit house and causing interference in possession of her mother-in-law on the suit house.

6. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed.

7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil

Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23116 Answers
1214 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 3072 OF 2007

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1194 OF 2007

Smtl Hemaxi Atul Joshi … Appellant

(Org.Deft.No.1)

Vs.

Smt. Muktaben Karsandas Joshi & Anr. Respondents

(Resp.No.1 – org.Plff
& Resp.No.2 – org.

Defendant nO.2)

Mr.Jaydev Trivedi, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Nitin Vhatkar, Advocate, a/w G.S.Hiranandani,Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Prajit S.Manjarekar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

DATE: 5th December,2007


( relevant extracts) 


 in the case of Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal reported in 152 (2008) DLT 691 and the relevant Paras of the same are reproduced as under:-

"8. ... 'Matrimonial home' is not defined in any of the statutory provisions. However, phrase "Matrimonial home" refers to the place which is dwelling house used by the parties, i.e., husband and wife or a place which was being used by husband and wife as the family residence. Matrimonial home is not necessarily the house of the parents of the husband. In fact the parents of the husband may allow him to live with them so long as their relations with the son (husband) are cordial and full of love and affection. But if the relations of the son or daughter-in-law with the parents of husband turn sour and are not cordial, the parents can turn them out of their house. The son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he can enforce the partition. Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout the life.
9. Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and affection, the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal liability on the parents to continue to support a dis-obedient son or a son which becomes liability on them or a son who dis-respects or dis- regards them or becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can always forsake such a son and daughter-in-law and tell them to leave their house and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love, affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons and families of sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love, affection and care. Where this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents cannot be forced to keep a son or daughter in law with them nor there is any statutory provision which compels parents to suffer because of the acts of residence and his son or daughter in law. A woman has her rights of maintenance against her husband or sons/daughters. She can assert her rights, if any, against the property of her husband, but she cannot thrust herself against the parents of her husband, nor can claim a right to live in the house of parents of her husband, against their consult and wishes.
27. In yet another case Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors. reported in 174 (2010) DLT 79 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court took a view that a property which neither belongs to husband nor is taken on rent by him, nor is a joint family property in which husband is a member, cannot be regarded as shared household and, therefore, the daughter-in-law has no right to claim right to stay in such a property, which belongs to either the father-in-law or mother-in-law. The Hon'ble Division Bench also held that the right of residence which a wife undoubtedly has does not mean right to reside in a particular property and it is only in that property in which the husband has a right, title or interest that wife can claim residence and that too if no other commensurate accommodation is provided by the husband. The following paragraphs from the said judgment are reproduced as under:-

"40. ...the concept of maintenance, insofar as a Hindu lady is concerned, necessarily encompasses the provision for residence. Furthermore, the provision for residence may be made either by giving a lump sum in money or property in lieu thereof. It may also be made by providing, for the course of the lady's life, a residence and money for other necessary expenditure. Insofar as Section 17 of the said Act is concerned, a wife would only be entitled to claim a right of residence in a "shared household" and such a 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 which neither belongs to the husband nor is taken on rent by him, nor is it a joint family property in which the husband is a member, cannot be regarded as a "shared household". Clearly, the property which exclusively belongs to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law or to them both, in which the husband has no right, title or interest, cannot be called a "shared household". The concept of matrimonial home, as would be applicable in England under the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, has no relevance in India.
41. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the appellant/plaintiff would certainly have a right of residence whether as a part of maintenance or as a separate right under the said Act. The right of residence, in our view, is not the same thing as a right to reside in a particular property which the appellant refers to as her 'matrimonial home'. The said Act was introduced, inter alia, to provide for the rights of women to secure housing and to provide for the right of the women to reside in a shared household, whether or not she had any right, title or interest in such a household."
28. I have also had occasion to deal with some-what similar situation in the case of Kavita Chaudhari v. Eveneet Singh and Anr., reported in 2012 (130) DRJ 83, wherein the civil suit was filed by the mother-in-law seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against her son and daughter- in-law and in violation of the interim order passed by the court, the daughter- in-law failed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the mother- in-law, thereby necessitating the Decree Holder i.e mother-in-law to file an execution petition. Following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.R. Batra(supra), it was held as under in the following paras:-

"The property which neither belongs to the husband nor is taken on rent by him, nor is it a joint family property in which the husband is a member, cannot be regarded as a „shared household?. Clearly, the property which exclusively belongs to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law or to both of them in which the husband has no right, title or interest, cannot be called a „share household?. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Sumita Didi (supra) also observed that the right of residence which a wife undoubtedly has does not mean her right to reside in a particular property although such a right in terms of Section 17 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is a right to reside in a commensurate property.
17. At omega, this Court would like to observe that with a view to mitigate the oppression and inequality suffered by the fairer sex in this country from times immemorial; various woman friendly laws have been enacted so as to empower the women. It is a bitter truth that where on one hand these progressive laws have led to amelioration and advancement of the cause of the woman in this country, at the same time on the other hand these liberalized statutes have been flagrantly misused. The right of the woman to her matrimonial home is one such right which has been brought on the statute book to protect the woman from being left in lurch at the hands of the in-laws. However one cannot or may I say should not shy away from the hard hitting reality that it is not always the daughter in law who is berated but at times the in laws who are at the receiving end of the daughter in law's cantankerousness. It should not be for a moment consigned to oblivion that the parents in law have every right to live in peace in their own property and the right to property vested in them cannot be snatched away and used as a tool to harass them. In the facts of the case at hand, it is not in dispute before this Court that the said property bearing No. D-32, South Extension, New Delhi is the property owned by the mother-in-law which property was bequeathed in her favour by her father and therefore the said property cannot be treated as a joint family property. The daughter-in-law has no right to stay in the said property and with the exit of her husband from the same the judgment debtor has also lost the right to the said premises as well."
29. One can also not lose sight of the fact that none of the statutes which deal with the rights of a married woman in India, be it The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; The Hindu Succession Act, 1956; The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; The Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or The Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 confer any right of maintenance including residence for the married woman as against the parents of the husband. To illustrate, Sections 24 and 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the wife's right to pendent lite maintenance and Permanent Alimony only against her husband. Section 17 (1) of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 gives protection to the wife where 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 within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Act. Section 18 of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 enumerates the right of a Hindu wife to be maintained by her husband during her life time. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for monthly maintenance to wife, irrespective of her religion, if she has no source of income or means to maintain herself against her husband. The wife's right to maintenance which includes her residence in a commensurate property is, thus, only against the husband. Marriage is a social union of two persons called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them. The concept of Matrimonial Home has evolved with the passage of time. The concept hails from the law of England under the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. There is no such absolute statute in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, which clearly stipulates that the rights which may be available under marriage laws can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law. However, it is quite discernible that the spouses in wedlock, are obliged to take care of each other and in case of any inter-se dispute; one can claim his right with respect to maintenance only against the other and not against the other family members. With the transient course it has been observed that with the advent of various women friendly laws, empowering the women with equal rights as that of a man/ husband, the remedy of women to ask for maintenance or to claim her right in the residence in a commensurate property is only restricted to her husband and not against her parents in law. A woman 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. This means that she can assert her rights, if any, only against the property of her husband and cannot claim a right to live in the house of her husband's parents without their wishes and caprice. Law permits a married woman to claim maintenance against her in-laws only in a situation covered under section 19 of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. i.e. after the death of the husband and that too when she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings etc. It would not be abominable to say that even the parents/ parents in law at the fag-end of their lives, deserve to live a blissful, happy and a peaceful life, away from any tautness or worries.

30. In the light of the aforesaid legal position the defendant No.1, being a daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, has no right as against the plaintiff i.e. her father-in-law, to occupy any portion of the subject property, which is his self- acquired property.

31. The next thing to be seen in the present case is whether grant of such an interim mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff is imperative to prevent any irreparable loss or serious injury to the plaintiff which normally could not be compensated in terms of money.

32. In the facts of the present case, the plaintiff is aged about 80 years and his wife is aged about 74 years and they are suffering from various old age and other ailments. It is also an admitted position that the defendant No.1 left the subject premises on 20.10.2010 but again entered the said premises later although her husband started residing in a rented accommodation. Without going into the veracity of the complaints and counter complaints filed by the plaintiff and the daughter-in-law, one thing clearly emerges that the relation between the parties are highly embittered and they are on a complete war path. In my view, in such a scenario, while also considering the effect that such environment would have on the minor children, it would be preposterous for both the parties to stay under the same roof. Consideration may also be given to the well-known fact that the civil litigation takes years to conclude and by not granting interim stay in favour of the aged parents-in-law for all these years until the date of final decision of the case, they would be unnecessarily compelled to spend far end of their lives in a formulated, non- consensual and woeful environment. The court can also not lose sight of the fact that the defendant no. 1 has already been offered by the defendant no. 2 to reside with him in his rented accommodation or in the alternate has also been offered a sum of Rs. 30,000 to reside in some other rented accommodation. The defendant no. 1, being herself not happy with the conduct of her in-laws and husband, can avail this facility and shift to another equally good accommodation for which her husband is ready to bear the monthly rental expenses. By such an arrangement, in my opinion, interest of both the parties would be secured at such an interim stage.

33. Counsel for the defendant also raised a plea that plaintiff has played serious fraud upon the Court by not disclosing about having a residential house at Calcutta. Counsel also placed reliance on documents placed on record which clearly prove that the residence of the plaintiff is at Calcutta. Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff by having his residential address at two places has violated the relevant provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Undeniably, it would have been better, had the plaintiff disclosed about having his residence at the Calcutta property too, as for claiming equitable discretionary relief one must place all the material and relevant facts before the court. Nevertheless, it has not been denied by defendant No.1 that plaintiff has been residing in the property bearing number B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi since 2010. The court is of the view that the right of plaintiff has to be considered vis-a-vis Delhi property and not Calcutta property. The mere fact that plaintiff has another property at Calcutta cannot deprive him from residing in his Delhi property and therefore non-disclosure of a residential property at Calcutta in the present suit cannot be taken as a suppression of a material fact so as to dis-entitle the plaintiff from the grant of discretionary relief. There is thus no merit in this plea raised by defendant No.1.

34. Counsel for defendant No.1 also argued that there is an apparent collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to throw out defendant No.1 from the alleged matrimonial home. This argument of counsel for defendant No.1 is also devoid of any merit as the Court has to prima-facie consider the right of defendant No.1 to reside in the property owned by her father-in-law and as discussed above, defendant No.1 has no legitimate right to stay in the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law unless permitted by the parents- in-law themselves.

35. In the light of the above discussion, the balance of convenience strongly lies in favour of the plaintiff as against defendant No.1. The non- grant of the interim mandatory injunction will result in causing more prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff in comparison with the alleged rights of the defendant No.1 to stay in an accommodation which is neither a matrimonial home nor a shared household accommodation.

36. Interim mandatory injunction is therefore granted in favour of the petitioner and against the defendant no. 1. Defendant No.1 is accordingly directed to vacate the subject property bearing No. B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi and hand over peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of this order. It is further directed that concerned Court seized with the petition filed by defendant No.1 under Domestic Violence Act shall decide the interim application of defendant No.1 for the grant of maintenance, which will include her right to a residence in the commensurate property as per the financial status of defendant No.2, within a period of one month from the date of this order. Defendant No.1 in the meanwhile is also set at liberty to shift to the rented accommodation as offered by defendant No.2 for her exclusive residence along with her children or to accept an amount of Rs.30,000 towards the amount of rent, pending disposal of her maintenance application before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate/ Mahila Court .

37. With the above directions the present application stands disposed of.

38. It is ordered accordingly.

KAILASH GAMBHIR 05 February, 2013
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23116 Answers
1214 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Your brother is at liberty to apply dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty that he will have to prove in the court through cogent evidence. During her matrimony she has the right to reside in her matrimonial home. If false cases are filed against you then obtain pre-arrest bail and contest the cases on merits. 
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18057 Answers
445 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. First of all you shall have to understand that taking dowry is a crime as per law which your brother has commited,

2. Ask your brother to withdraw his name from the joint bank account where the said amount has been kept to escape from future charge for taking dowry,

3. Ask your brother to take up a rented house and start staying there (the rent may be financed by you if he can not bear it),

4. Before all, start audio/video recording all abusive conversations and acts of your sister in law to be used as evidence of her cruelty,

5. After that ask your parents to lodge a police complaint against her for her abuses and assaults,

6. If police fails to take any action, they should file a Writ Petition before the High Court against police inaction praying for relief and direction upon your sister in law to stay with her husband at his rented house,
 
7. Next, your mother should file a DV case against her,

8. This way once she is out of your father's house, your father  should file an application before the Court restraining her entry in to your father's house.  
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12043 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Dear Querist
File a domestic violence case against her before magistrate court by your mother, if mother is not in position to appear before the court then on behalf of her any person may file the case and claim protection from her and restrain her for committing any domestic violence against your mother and father, if the house is in the name of your father or mother then claim to restrain her to enter in the house but your brother should be residing another accommodation.

Your brother may file a divorce case against her before the family court/district court under section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act-1955 based on cruelty.

Your parents or brother may file a criminal complaint against them before police or court for extortion u/s 383/384 of IPC if they demand money and property by blackmailing your parents and brother for falsely implication in criminal cases .
Feel Free to Call
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3517 Answers
129 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
It is your brother's life, he only has to decide about how to move on with her not only now but also in the future.
If she is not compatible and seems to be uncontrollable, he may have to make a call on his married life with her. 
There is no use of grumbling sand living  together without any peace of mind or with ever growing fear and aspersions. 
He can file a divorce case on the grounds of cruelty, but before that he has to return that Rs. 3 lacs he received it as dowry amount with evidence in the presence of her family members.
If she is lodging 498a case, then he has to take AB first and challenge her false case accordingly. 
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13919 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
if you have evidence to prove that she is aggressor and committed act of cruelty then you can take advantage of Arnesh kumar case. in this case supreme court has decided that when wife is aggressor and no evidence to prima facie establish her case, case should be quashed by the high court.  

if court quashes her complaint on the want of evidence or fails to establish prima facie case then it constitutes a valid ground of divorce. it is an act of matrimonial cruelty. you can file divorce on this ground.  
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2729 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
1) your brother should file complaint of criminal defamation against wife and her family before magistrate court under section 499 and 500 of IPC  for malinging   his  reputation 

2) also file   suit for damages 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23116 Answers
1214 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
The only way that your brother can get rid of her is by applying for dissolution of marriage. The court will see your evidence even if police is not taking it into account.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18057 Answers
445 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
If they are influencing the police and giving you more tortures, your brother should secure evidences where ever possible and draft a neat complaint against the erring police who support her taking bribes from them, seek a remedy by his  intervention.  
If the above step fails to fetch any fruit then you may draft a private complaint under section 156(3) against her and her father and seek protection through court with a direction to the concerned police for necessary legal action against those people
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13919 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Send a complaint letter by speed post to the local police station under copy to the local DC/SP,

2. If police fails to take any action, file a writ petition for police inaction praying for releif,

3. Ask your mother to file a DV case against your sister in law.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12043 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Family Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13919 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23116 Answers
1214 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18057 Answers
445 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12043 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5153 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3517 Answers
129 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
869 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
424 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1905 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2729 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0