Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I>Amish Agarwal
I watch his YouTube channel aswell.
>So any reason why Amish Agarwal suggests to start living on rent after you get married ?
Living away from parents, with your wife, is always a best decision, you can’t have others interve in your marriage, it gives you more freedom to interact with her.
Secondly and most importantly,
If things go sour, she can assert her right to reside in marital home, which, if it your parent’s house, can get there assets entangled in it aswell. She can even get residence orders to force male members of the family away.
The court expect you to provide reasonable accommodation for her, living in a rented house means that it is considered the marital home and your parents and relatives assets remain safe.
Also, it’s can be hard for you or your parents to evict the wife from your home, but the owner of the house can legally evict her after your tenancy ends.
Especially give that wife has can reside in marital home for an indefinite period, even after divorce, while courts have held that she cannot force husband to indefinitely pay rent.
In all honesty, if you are going to have to let an divorcing wife reside with you, it better be the house of somone else rather than you.
IThat’s good evidence, only the lawyer knows precise legal remedies. I can answer basic questions if you have any but I am not a professional.IIf your resignation was accepted without notice period and no dues were mentioned, then they waived their right to recover notice pay.No employer has the legal right to retain an employee’s original educational or identity documents.
This violates Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution (right to profession and life).
Also goes against Labour Ministry guidelines and can be challenged in court.
IUnder Indian law, the “matrimonial home” is not strictly defined by ownership, but rather by where the husband and wife live or have last lived together in a domestic relationship after marriage.**Legal Definition (Under Indian Law)**
A “matrimonial home” is generally:
The house where the couple resides or resided together after marriage,
Regardless of who owns it (even if it’s rented or belongs to in-laws),
It is relevant mostly for rights under laws like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
**In your given case:**
House C will be considered the matrimonial home immediately after marriage, since you and your wife will begin your married life there.
Once you move to House B (rented), that becomes your new matrimonial home.
Ownership of the property (whether you or your parents own it) does not matter for defining a matrimonial home.
Houses A1 and A2 are not matrimonial homes unless you and your wife permanently live there after marriage.
IUnder Indian property and succession law, including the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and general principles of co-ownership and transfer of property, the ownership distribution based on your described events would break down as follows, assuming the 6 acres were purchased in equal undivided shares and there is no overriding family, tribal, or customary law that changes this interpretation:**Initial Situation:**
A, B, and C jointly buy 6 acres, so by default:
A: 2 acres
B: 2 acres
C: 2 acres
**Event 1: A’s Will (gives 2 acres to D)**
A bequeaths his entire 2-acre share to D.
B is a witness, which under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act does not invalidate the will unless B is also a beneficiary. (He’s not.)
→ D is entitled to A’s 2 acres.
**Event 2: B’s Will (gives 2 acres to E and F)**
B bequeaths his 2-acre share to E and F (we assume jointly, so 1 acre each).
A is a witness, but again, since A is not a beneficiary, the will is valid.
→ E and F are entitled to 1 acre each from B’s share.
**Event 3: C executes a release deed and sells 2 acres**
C sells 2 acres out of her 2-acre share. Assuming this is from her own legal share, this is a valid transfer.
Now, C retains no ownership—she has sold her entire share.
However, she is refusing to vacate the remaining 4 acres still jointly held by D (A’s successor), E and F (B’s successors).
**Current Legal Ownership (After A and B’s Death):**
D (via A’s will): 2 acres
E and F (via B’s will): 1 acre each
Private entity (purchased from C): 2 acres
C: 0 acres (she sold her share) but still in possession of land she no longer owns
**Final Distribution:**
D: 2 acres (inherited from A)
E: 1 acre (inherited from B)
F: 1 acre (inherited from B)
Private Entity: 2 acres (purchased from C)
C: Legally owns nothing, but may be in illegal possession of the remaining land
**Legal Remedies and Notes:**
D, E, and F can file a suit for partition and possession to assert their ownership rights.
C’s possession over the remaining 4 acres is unauthorized—a court can order her eviction if necessary.
If the will(s) are registered and not challenged, they hold full legal weight under Indian law.
Ithe Factories Act, 1948 applies only to factories as defined under the law—i.e., premises where manufacturing processes occur with a certain number of workers.CA firms are not factories, so the Factories Act does not apply to them.
CA firms fall under Shops and Establishments Act, this is a state-specific law and each state in India has its own law version of this. So check you state law regarding this, though most CAs don’t follow it.
IYou are not legally liable unless it can be proven that you acted in bad faith — which your documented efforts clearly contradict. So, your safe.Ask the owner to file a formal representation with the police to close the case.
IEPFO still considers parents as family even if not financially dependent, you can still nominate them. Dependency is not strictly enforced in nomination.You can later update the nomination after marriage to include your spouse or children.
If no valid nominee is registered and the employee passes away, legal heirs (as per succession laws) must claim the EPF amount. This process is lengthy and involves legal shinennigans. Employer can’t release EPF without EPFO approval.
IIndia does not currently have a centralized national marriage registry that flags existing marriages automatically. **So practically, if someone goes to register a second marriage without disclosing the first, it might not get flagged immediately unless someone objects or there’s a complaint.** However, this does not make it legal — it’s still considered bigamy under Section 494 IPC.**Bigamy under Section 494 IPC (or equivalent BNS provison) is a non-cognizable offense, meaning the police cannot act on it without a court directive.** So the complaint as to be filed with Judicial Magistrate who needs to take cognizance and direct the police to investigate.
Also, if a person gets married while already having a living spouse and without obtaining a legal divorce, **the second marriage is null and void from the beginning (void ab initio) under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.** So its automatically invalid, like it never happened and does not confer spousal rights, such as maintenance, inheritance, or joint property claims and can be challenged at any time by any party — including in court.
ISince your friend married the Muslim girl under the Hindu Marriage Act, they are legally married according to Hindu law. The Hindu Marriage Act only allows for divorce under formal legal procedures (such as filing for divorce in a family court). If they do not go through the divorce process, their marriage remains valid in the eyes of the law, and they are still considered legally married.If they separate without a formal divorce, this does not legally dissolve the marriage. Separation alone does not end the marriage; it only means they are living apart. If your friend attempts to marry someone else while still legally married (without divorce), this would be considered bigamy, which is illegal in India. Bigamy is punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 494, which provides for imprisonment of up to 7 years if someone marries again while their spouse is still alive and the marriage hasn’t been legally dissolved.
IWithout a written aggreement, A’s legal options are limited, the best you they could hope for is some temporary relief but B can legally evict A I belive.Not a lawyer, so you might want to consult one,
Adverse Possession, which allows a person to claim ownership over property if they’ve possessed it openly, continuously, and hostilely (i.e., without permission) for 12 years.
However, since A and B are brothers and A operated the shop with implied or express permission (even if informal), adverse possession is unlikely to apply, as the possession wasn’t “hostile.”
Hmmm…..
ITo make a successful adverse possession claim, all the following must be true:1. Hostile Possession: Without permission of the true owner.
2. Actual Possession: The person must physically possess the property.
3. Open and Notorious: The possession must be visible and obvious to anyone.
4. Exclusive: Not shared with the true owner or public.
5. Continuous: Uninterrupted for at least 12 years.
6. Denial of Title: There must be a clear and consistent denial of the owner’s title.
Courts are reluctant to favor tenants claiming adverse possession, unless it’s clearly proven that:
The tenancy was terminated,
The possession became adverse, and
This was communicated or was obvious to the true owner.
Tenancy is initially permissive, so it must be clearly shown that it changed into “hostile” possession and the owner was aware of this or should have been.
So, consult a lawyer who knows how the law works, in Courts, adverse possession have very low success rate but you seem to have case.
IAs per Indian civil law:The loan is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, unless fraud or cheating is alleged.
Loan repayment timelines depend on the agreement (oral or written).
There is no criminal liability for not repaying a personal loan unless fraud, cheating, or dishonest intention can be proved.
If they file a civil suit for recovery, the court will allow time to respond and present your case.
