Thane Court Denies Woman’s Claim to Father-In-Law’s Flat in Dispute
A Thane court has rejected a woman’s plea for rights to her father-in-law’s flat amid a property dispute
Thane, India, Property Dispute, Domestic Violence, Court Ruling
Mumbai: So, here’s the scoop. The Thane Sessions Court just turned down a woman’s request for rights to a flat owned by her estranged father-in-law. This woman, a practicing advocate’s daughter, was looking for exclusive rights after her earlier plea was tossed out by a lower court.
The judge, Amit Shete, pointed out that her claim seemed more about the property than anything else. He called the situation “gross” and said the laws about shared household rights didn’t apply to her case.
He even referenced a Supreme Court ruling, saying that while people have the right to live in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, her situation didn’t meet the necessary criteria.
The judge noted that the couple had only been married for three months and were living separately in another flat owned by the family. It seemed like she was really pushing to get that Sanghavi Valley flat, possibly influenced by her advocate father.
The woman, who we’ll call Madhuri Kadam, married Mayuresh Kadam back in 2016. They were both divorcees who met through a matrimonial service.
Madhuri claimed her in-laws made her do all the housework and that they were forced to live apart. She said they wouldn’t transfer the flat to Mayuresh’s name, which is why she sought property rights and maintenance from the court.
After her initial plea was denied, she took it to the Thane Sessions Court. Mayuresh countered her claims, saying she and her family hid important details about her previous marriage.
He argued that Madhuri’s family rushed the marriage before her divorce was finalized and that she pressured his parents to hand over the flat, harassing them when they refused.
Mayuresh also suggested that Madhuri’s father was behind the legal push for the flat. The court found that she didn’t prove any domestic violence, which is crucial for claiming rights under the Domestic Violence Act.
The judge explained that to get a shared household order, you need to show evidence of domestic violence and a need for protection. Madhuri just didn’t meet those requirements.
Plus, the couple had been living apart during their short marriage, making her claims of domestic violence seem a bit shaky.
In the end, the court ruled that since the flat belongs to Mayuresh’s father, he has every right to it. Madhuri can’t just demand it be declared her shared household.
So, the court dismissed her appeal, confirming she wasn’t entitled to the flat or any of the other relief she was seeking.