What do you think of this situation?

Malyatha · Apr 16, 2009

Let's call her 'X'.

'X' was previously a childless widow in her mid-20s. Her MIL was deceased even before she was married, and her SIL (we'll call her 'Y') had eloped with a man from a different caste about 15 years previously. Net result: 'X' inherited not only all of her MIL's jewelry but also some landed property that had originally belonged to her MIL (inherited from MIL's parents).

About 5 years after her husband's death, 'X' remarried. 'X's ex-SIL now came forward to demand that since she had remarried, that she no longer had the right to her ex-MIL's jewelry or landed property and is demanding the return of these possessions. 'X' refused, stating that the property rightfully belonged to her as the property would have belonged to 'Y's brother, if he had lived, and hence to her. She does not see why she shouldn't hold on to this property, just because Y's brother has died and she has remarried!

Do you agree with this logic? Does it sound right to you? Why or why not?

Bujji · Apr 16, 2009

Since 'Y' is eloped, I understand she abandoned her parents for her lover.
I don't see any right she has, on her parent's assets, when she ignored them in the early years.

The only reason I feel 'X' can possess the jewels, because 'Y' does not deserve it.

Padmini · Apr 16, 2009

dear malytha,
i feel" Y" does not have any right to demand for anything. without caring her mother's feelings she eloped. then, what right she has to demand for the property? just because she remarried, "x" cannot be denied of the property.
if "y" is in need of money she can request x to give or lend some money. this is my opinion.
with love
pad

Lucks08 · Apr 16, 2009

According to me , Y is daughter , X is DIL. One eloped(and married), other remarried.

Both should have same rights over the property.

They should divide it equally...

amul · Apr 16, 2009

Hi All,

I agree with bujji and padmini.
Y may not have the right for the property as she left her parents and she is now back only for sake of money , not for for her parents(not alive).
It will be nice if X can give her some part but not too much as it shows her generosity.Its up to her.
regards
amul.

ennaye · Apr 16, 2009

Did the MIL die leaving a will? If so , to whom did she leave her properties? If the will was there then the properties have to be given according to the will.

If there is no will then the law of the land would govern how the properties are dealt with.

asuitablegirl · Apr 16, 2009

Like Ennaye, I'm also wondering if there was a will involved? If the mil left everything to her dil, then it's the dils right to keep the assets. However, it might be a kind gesture to give some of the jewels to the sil, especially if the sil wants them for sentimental reasons.The story is unclear if whether after the sil's elopement, she ever came back and was part of her parents lives. Or did she run away never to be seen from again? That makes a difference. So if you have the details, please elaborate further!

I would like to add, this ancestral rights stuff doesn't matter squat if the mil WANTED to give it to her dil. The mil could have given the stuff to a donkey, and it would be the donkey's right to keep it if that was the mil's wishes.

sandu · Apr 16, 2009

Ahaa, Malyatha, ethu enna Balachander kathai maathiri irukku? (This looks like Balachander (the famous tamil director)'s story). :rotfl

I dont agree with X's logic.

To me, legally, it looks like 50-50 for X and Y.

But, morally, I feel X should let go of her ex-MIL's property as she has remarried. She might have right to that property, but, she is remarrying and is starting life with someone else. So, I would want X to return all her ex-MIL's property to whoever is in-charge (her ex-FIL or ex-BIL or ex-SIL or the court).

Exceptions:
1. If X supports the members of her ex-in-laws financially or takes cares for them physically (which I think isnt the case), then she might retain a part of it.
2. If X had a child out of her first marriage, she may retain some of the property for the child's future.

To me, Y is a daughter of the old lady. Whether she eloped or not, she is still a daughter, as long as the old lady didnt disown her. So, she has a right to the property. X has not taken care of her ex-MIL any more than Y, as the old lady passed away even before X came into picture. So, demeaning Y just because she disappeared 15 years back isnt fair. Who knows how X would have treated her ex-MIL were she alive??

So, X should give back the assets. Well, thats my opinion. My 2cents
Sandhya

SiriVeda · Apr 16, 2009

Dear Mayalatha,

Please see the following.....

1. Does X have any children from her deceased husband. If YES, then she can exercise her right on the property as it is ancestral and it belongs to her children. If NO I don't see how she can take the ancestral property even after remarrying. She has a support now, so she should let go of the property as considering the present condition, 'Y's children or 'Y' legally have more right than 'X'.

2. Is there any written will which says, X should get everything after her husband. If YES then 'Y' cannot claim anything.

'Y' did elope, but this is not a crime and she cannot be punished legally. Ethically, yes it is wrong. But that does not deprive her children of the property of their grand parents. May be she should let 'X' keep some jewelry with her.

Now that 'X' got the support of another family, she should not hold on to this property which rightfully belongs to someone else. This is what I feel.....

Malyatha · Apr 16, 2009

Some clarifications:

1. This is a real life issue unfolding in the lives of people that I personally know. I am not taking sides as both parties are equally important to me.

2. 'X', as mentioned previously, is a childless widow. So, no children from Marriage No. 1 are involved.

3. No will is involved, either. The MIL died many years prior to the daughter's elopement AND her son's marriage. The FIL remarried and has a son with his second wife. (This son is currently supporting his parents financially 100%).

4. 'X' blames her step-MIL for her husband's demise. The reason is really weird, and makes no sense to me, but she feels that the SMIL has some responsibility in her first husband's death (nothing criminal, mind you, but just psychological and financial in nature -- I am afraid to elaborate further as I do not wish to compromise my identity here on a public forum).

5. After 'Y' eloped, her father and step-mother cut off all communication with her. She tried many times to reunite with her parents but they refused to let her return to the fold. HOWEVER, this changed after her brother's death. The father, in particular, is overwhelmed with grief and is yet to get over his son's death, and so he permitted his daughter to return to the family fold. The daughter provides much moral and emotional support to her father and step-mother while the younger son provides the financial support.

6. The new husband initially did not permit 'X' to remain in touch with her ex-ILs! Now, he's OK with it but told her openly not to expect him to join her in her visits to their homes or events (which are very rare, to begin with!).

7. ASG, the nature of the property DOES matter. Unlike SELF-EARNED property, one cannot simply bequeath ancestral property to anyone at random. The way I understand this (and I am no lawyer, so I could be wrong), even if the MIL had lived and had wished to pass on ALL of her property to her son & DIL, she couldn't have done this, if the daughter had opposed this in the first place, for the simple reason that she (the MIL) didn't earn it, but, rather, had inherited everything from HER parents. So, 'Y', as the grand-daughter of her grand-parents, can stake claim to her share of the mother's inheritance, regardless of her mother's wishes in the matter. The logic is simple. If you didn't earn it, you don't get to say who inherits it after you die. The SIL, 'Y', is now talking of pursuing legal action but we are hoping that they can resolve this without an ugly court battle.

8. Finally, my own thoughts on the matter: 'X's argument makes no sense to me. One, because the property is ancestral in nature and as she has remarried, she is no longer a member of the family. And, two, because she does not keep in touch with members of her ex-ILs' families or extend any form of the emotional, moral or financial support to her ex-ILs, support that she would have (through her first husband, had he lived). The ex-ILs are now being supported by their daughter and son, not the ex-DIL. So, the way I see it, 'X' should return the possessions to her ex-SIL, 'Y'. I am not going to make my stance obvious in real life, of course, but I am voicing it here in public just to make sure that I am thinking this through logically?