- This topic has 10 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
-
-
BNot mandatory as per law but they can absolutely drag you to court and come after you for their relationship rights and unless they are abusive they can win and you can lose the case. Also if you deny any relationship they can cut off your child from their will. I believe even an ancestral property will be out of question if there is no relationship
-
LDevolving of Ancestral property on coparceners is not dependent on them having friendly terms with the widow or progeny of the coparcener 🙄
As far as naming in will is concerned they can choose to not name the kid in will as there’s no connect but they can’t remove him from the ancestral property. Will is made of personal or self acquired property. If OP wants the kid to have a part in it she should maintain relations. Else OP feel free to cut them off.
Also even if they file a case they can at most ask for visitation rights . They aren’t going to get custody if mother is alive and of sane mind and able to support the child financially.
I disagree with yoir answer n observations …
-
-
-
IThe widow may not be directly obligated in the legal sense; she can choose not to maintain any relations with the in-laws.
At the same time, the in-laws potentially could:
1. Initiate proceedings u/ S144 BNSS against the daughter-in-law.
2. Initiate proceedings u/ Sr Citizens Act against the daughter-in-law.
3. File for visitation rights u/ Guardian and Wards Act for the child against the daughter-in-law.Unless the daughter-in-law is able to prove physical/mental abuse concerning the child, the courts usually look favourably on such petitions. The in-laws could claim that the grandson is the last living relative and vestige of their deceased son and It could be framed under “wholesome family interactions” and may be deemed in the best interest of the child.
One of the effective ways to resist this is to make it logistically disruptive in the child’s life, such as moving to another city. However, even in that case, a good advocate representing the in-laws can mitigate the impact, and concessions could still be allowed.
-
SThe amount of people in the comments who think there’s nothing wrong in a person denying their in-laws access to their grandchild(and consequently and perhaps more importantly, vice versa) is exactly what’s wrong with society today. Yuck.
-
MThis is a legal sub. Not a moral one. Secondly the in laws could be a threat to the child? Do you know the full picture. You’re what’s wrong with society. Reaching conclusions on assumptions.
-
-
-
-
