Hindu Womens right to property

Thanks Laks 09 and maggi 99 for your comments,

Laks 09 as you said its always the up bringing of children that matters, when brothers and sisters respect each other as equal then the qustion of all these does not come, when there is no respect , no love for each other then it will be the root cause for all problems

Well, I for one am happy about this law as it tries to bring gender equality into force. But, pitfalls, as some people have already pointed out, are:

Parents and perhaps brothers pay for marrying the daughter/sister off, and in most cases, that amount is way too much compared to what the groom's side spend. (Not only marriage, but also on jewels given to the girl). Nowadays, both the sons and daughters are given good education. Still, people spend more on a daughter's marriage than a sons. Also, parents and perhaps brothers too have to bear other expenses related to the sister, like international flight ticket for the parents to visit the sister, occasional costly gifts to her, for upholding the traditions. Considering all this, the brothers are indeed treated unfairly when the property is equally divided among all siblings.

Personally, I have come across a family where the sister's stake to the claim of their parents' properties has been ridiculed by the brothers, brothers' wives and brothers children. The sisters are only thrown with statements, like "She is already settled now and is nearing old age. Her husband earns well. They have very few commitments in life. How can she ever think of asking for a share after we married her off? She is totally wrong in asking for this. She is trying to usurp our rights.", etc. All this, while the some of the brothers are more settled in life than those sisters , and try to not-so-fairly divide their assets among their children (of course favoring their daughter).


Although the law permits it, the brothers and their wives (at least some) are not willing to share the property with their sisters. Any attempt at seeking the property is only blamed as sister interfering in their family affairs and trying to swindle them.

I am not sure how many women will go to the court to get their share. Some of them may be abused by their in-laws for shabby treatment by their brothers and/or parents. Others, who have no problems from their husband or in-laws in this issue, may have hatred towards their FOO. Just a few will probably take it in their stride. All depends on the persons involved, the worth of the assets and the circumstances.

Ennaye, the story you had narrated is simply shocking. I never knew that a married woman's assests belong to her in-laws after she and her husband die and leave behind no children... Enlightening!

Sandhya

Originally Posted by monikakrishna76

but poor man has got right only with his parents (i.e., only from one place and no right from from his in-laws)

Is this true?? I thought a man can lay claim to his in-laws assets as long as he remains married to his wife. I am sure this is true for ancestral property, but not so sure about property bought by the parents of the wife.

Anyone has an idea?

Sandhya

Originally Posted by sandu

Is this true?? I thought a man can lay claim to his in-laws assets as long as he remains married to his wife. I am sure this is true for ancestral property, but not so sure about property bought by the parents of the wife.

Anyone has an idea?

Sandhya

NO YOU ARE WRONG.,
even i thought thst way.

Originally Posted by monikakrishna76

i dont have anything against woman., but this leading to another problem., where for a change the women folks are getting un-due advantage over men.

women claims property from in-laws also., she has right on that too.,
so they get the best of both the world., but poor man has got right only with his parents (i.e., only from one place and no right from from his in-laws)
and now he has to share that "one" also with his sisters.

The man may not get anything from his in-laws, but the wife gets to inherit from HER parents. Similarly, his sister won't get anything from HER in-laws, but her husband will get from HIS parents.

So, indirectly, BOTH brother AND sister get to enjoy assets passed on to them / their spouses from their parents AND in-laws. It is, therefore, ridiculous to say that a man *only* gets anything from his parents whereas his sister is 'double-dipping'. Why should we conveniently ignore the fact that the wife's inheritance goes into their FAMILY's 'pot of gold', too?

Originally Posted by sandu

Well, I for one am happy about this law as it tries to bring gender equality into force. But, pitfalls, as some people have already pointed out, are:
Girija: Dear Sandhya Thanks for your valuble reply on this issue

Parents and perhaps brothers pay for marrying the daughter/sister off, and in most cases, that amount is way too much compared to what the groom's side spend. (Not only marriage, but also on jewels given to the girl). Nowadays, both the sons and daughters are given good education. Still, people spend more on a daughter's marriage than a sons. Also, parents and perhaps brothers too have to bear other expenses related to the sister, like international flight ticket for the parents to visit the sister, occasional costly gifts to her, for upholding the traditions. Considering all this, the brothers are indeed treated unfairly when the property is equally divided among all siblings.

Girija: As you have said in some cases brothers are indeed treated unfairly, when they have done some much for sisters, to that effect I feel that legislature needs to be amended so that the amount of expenses spent on marriage, jewls, be duducted in working out partition.

Personally, I have come across a family where the sister's stake to the claim of their parents' properties has been ridiculed by the brothers, brothers' wives and brothers children. The sisters are only thrown with statements, like "She is already settled now and is nearing old age. Her husband earns well. They have very few commitments in life. How can she ever think of asking for a share after we married her off? She is totally wrong in asking for this. She is trying to usurp our rights.", etc. All this, while the some of the brothers are more settled in life than those sisters , and try to not-so-fairly divide their assets among their children (of course favoring their daughter).

Girija: with regard to above comments I fully agree with you, I being a legal professional, I have come across many cases were sisters are treated very badly by brothers and sister-in-laws, including the parents of sister-in-laws involving with their daughters seeing that sisters get less share or no share, even if they are not placed wel in life, for years brothers don t call up sisters, dont take care of their health when thy are seriously ill and ecomomically weak, in some cases sister in laws involve with In laws of sister and story never ends


Although the law permits it, the brothers and their wives (at least some) are not willing to share the property with their sisters. Any attempt at seeking the property is only blamed as sister interfering in their family affairs and trying to swindle them.

Girija: Blame and social stigma on sisters and her husband as unfit man

I am not sure how many women will go to the court to get their share. Some of them may be abused by their in-laws for shabby treatment by their brothers and/or parents. Others, who have no problems from their husband or in-laws in this issue, may have hatred towards their FOO. Just a few will probably take it in their stride. All depends on the persons involved, the worth of the assets and the circumstances.

Girija: lot of women are not going to court either because they are ignorent of their rights , social stigma that she has gone to court, lossing family ties,
parental pressure etc

Ennaye, the story you had narrated is simply shocking. I never knew that a married woman's assests belong to her in-laws after she and her husband die and leave behind no children... Enlightening!

Sandhya

Girija: Son in law has no right on the assets of in laws and daughter in law in the property of in laws; however in case of death of son, daughter-in law will get the share, and in case of death of daughter her children will get the share .


Regards,
Girija

In todays world it would be prudent to take ones share in the parental property as per law and if there is a will then according to it. Most parents give enough to their sons in their lifetime and the DIL keeps a hawks eye on MILs jewellery too.Sometimes the parents are forced to sell their property and register the new one in the sons name. In fact after parents die the love between the brother sister often fades and she has no place in her own parental home though her SILs family make merry in her own fathers house!
God forbid if her parents as well as brother passes away then she is treated like an unwanted guest in the house she grew in. It is very painful to see ones memories wiped clean and SILs people lording in ones home. Might as well get money if not love , care and respect.

Its rare to see a sister fighting with her own brother for property, unless things have really gone sour. Most sisters would rather have good relations with brother and SIL instead of money. Nobody wants a long drawn out legal battle .
It depends on how much money is at stake.But if the sister has never taken care of her parents then she should not ask for equal share. Parents should leave a clear will and name the daughter as beneficiary along with the son.
She cannot get any money unless the property is being sold ,though she can ask for accomodation .

Flowerlady thanks for your comments, its always the daughters in partition treated impartially with sons, in some cases even parents are against all for the sake of "sons" "Moksha" "Karma" god perbid we dont know when there will be end for all this inequalities

Originally Posted by GirijaRamesh

Flowerlady thanks for your comments, its always the daughters in partition treated impartially with sons, in some cases even parents are against all for the sake of "sons" "Moksha" "Karma" god perbid we dont know when there will be end for all this inequalities

Oh, yeah... "Karma pandra paiyanku thaan yellamay", never mind that even daughters can do the Karma! The Vedas do not specify that ONLY a son can light his parents' funeral pyres, perform their rites or even their annual Shraddams! Until the time of Manu, a daughter was considered to be equal to a son, and was treated on par with a son, but Manu and his misogynistic Shastra changed everything.

BTW, Flowerlady, while many DILs will want to grab their MILs' jewelry too, along with everything else that comes to their husbands, I have seen many MILs explicitly willing away their jewels to their daughters, outrightly giving the jewelry to their daughters during their own life time, or indirectly ensuring the daughters' inheritance by keeping the jewels in a bank locker and having the daughters on the locker account as either joint owners or nominees. This way, upon the mothers' deaths, the jewelry circumvents the DILs' grubby hands and goes straight to their own daughters without any problems / issues.

Hi Malyatha, How many daughters are allowed to perform their parents shradha and karma when they have sons, Manu said all followed like sheeps. Daughters are alwayes daughters sons are sons.only in cases where parents are rational and inculcated in family the concept of equality then in such families daughters do karma and shradha, have you not seen in india people trying for sons even after 6, 7, 8 daughters and ending up 9 as son JUST FOR WHAT