A marriage can be terminated legally through the process of divorce, which takes place in court. Both parties find the process of getting a divorce to be mentally taxing and exhausting, which can lead to stress. Legal agreements such as child support, spousal maintenance, and property division make the work more difficult. During the course of their marriage, a couple may have little trouble maintaining their financial well-being, but if they divorce, things may take a completely different turn. In order for them to find a solution to one of the most troubling issues, they need to gain an understanding of, as well as be aware of, the laws and procedures that are in place to determine who receives what portion of the property.
Property rights include the legal rights to obtain, possess, sell, and transfer property, as well as the rights to receive rent, keep one’s salary, enter into contracts, and file lawsuits. Property rights also include the rights to receive rent, keep one’s salary, enter into contracts, and file lawsuits. Following a divorce, the topic of women’s property rights is one of the most complex concerns facing society at present time. The right of women to their husband’s property for the purposes of a divorce property settlement depends on a variety of factors, including how the couple became separated and the reasons for the separation. Other factors include the length of the marriage and whether or not the couple had children together.
After a divorce, a wife may be entitled to some property rights, even if the property was previously owned jointly with her husband.
In the event that the couple decides to divorce amicably, and the property is held in the name of the husband, according to the law, the woman has no claim to the property. The Registration Act of 1908 states that the person who owns the property is the one who registered it under their name. This means that the person who registered the property is the legal owner. When it comes to the bank, ownership of the debt rests with the individual in whose name the loan was taken out and that individual is responsible for making the monthly payments on the loan.
Even if the wife did not contribute financially to the building of the house, the husband has no right to order her to leave the house until and until they have been legally divorced by a competent authority. This is true even if the wife did not contribute financially to the building of the house. She is entitled to continue living there until the competent authority decides whether or not their marriage should be declared invalid. The wife does not have the right to ask for a share of the property as part of the divorce settlement, but she does have the right to apply for financial support for herself and her children after the couple has finalised their divorce.
For instance, after the couple gets married, the guy goes out and purchases an apartment for himself and his new wife, and he has it registered in his own name. During the time that they were married, the husband and wife shared a home together in an apartment.
However, if the couple decides to divorce, the wife will be completely stripped of any rights to that apartment, while the husband would continue to hold full ownership of it.
In a somewhat different scenario, in which the husband and wife jointly purchased the flat, but the apartment is registered in the husband’s name, the wife is not eligible to claim ownership of the residence. However, in order to demonstrate that she contributed financially to the purchase of the home, she can present documents such as bank records and other evidence.
After a divorce, a woman may be entitled to some property rights in a joint property.
When a couple buys a home together, they are doing it for a variety of reasons, including the opportunity to save money on taxes, to make savings more easily, or to split the cost of the house. The woman has the legal right to assert a share of the property in the event of a divorce if it is registered as joint property. As part of the divorce settlement, the judge may decide to award her a portion of the property based on the total amount as well as the proportion that she contributed.
When attempting to purchase property in her husband’s name, this lady must present documentation of the contributions she has made in order to protect her property rights. She may do so by providing the account statements in order to assert her rights. When two people purchase a property together, the ownership of the property is referred to as joint ownership. The Hindu Succession Act from 1956 stipulates that if a woman is a co-owner of a property, she has the legal right to continue living there until both the divorce and the property settlement resulting from the divorce have been finalised. In the case of Satish Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, which was heard by the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, this was likewise determined to be the case (2020). In this instance, the women’s father-in-law initiated legal action to obtain an injunction mandating that the women vacate the residence without delay. He argued that neither his son nor his daughter-in-law could claim ownership of the land because it actually belonged to him. In this case, the court decided that the lady had the right to remain in the home regardless of the percentage of ownership that her husband owned in the property.
It is possible for either the wife or the husband to initiate the process of settling their portion of the property with the party that desires to keep it. This can be done either before or during the process of getting a divorce, and the parties involved are also responsible for paying the percentage according on the conditions of the market at the time.
The updated legal draught of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was passed in 1956
This section provides the court with the ability to make decisions regarding matters of property that were provided jointly to the couple at the time of their marriage. However, this rule does not apply to any possessions that either partner acquires over the course of their marriage. These properties are not included.
If any of the spouses is interested in obtaining an order in accordance with this Section, they are required to submit an application prior to the conclusion of the divorce procedures. However, the court does not have the authority to issue an order concerning any other property, regardless of whether it is owned jointly or individually.
In the event that the parties are able to reach a compromise about the ownership of such property, the court may preserve a record of the terms of the agreement. On the other hand, an opposing viewpoint was presented in the case of Kampta Prasad v. Omwati (1971), in which the Allahabad High Court ruled that it is not accurate and established that it was not.
In the case of Satya Pal v. Sushila (1983), it was determined that the application made by the wife under this Section for the purpose of recovering jewellery and other items from the husband was not maintainable. This decision was reached after the court reviewed the facts of the case.
In the case of Basudev v. Chhaya (1991), it was decided that the woman has the right to remain in the matrimonial house until the end of the marriage, regardless of whether or not the couple remains married.
In the event that a husband does not divorce his wife but instead abandons her, the woman is entitled to certain property rights.
According to the property rights of women, in the extremely uncommon case that a husband abandons his wife and does not file for divorce, the woman’s children and she herself have the right to declare a stake in their father’s property. This right does not exist for men. In the event that the husband has children with another woman, such children are entitled to an equal share of the property. In the event that there is property that is owned by the husband, the first wife and her children would have the initial right to the property that is owned by their biological father. This is because the husband is their biological father.
In this scenario, the father/husband becomes the fourth stakeholder in the property, and the children and second wife from the second marriage will claim their portion fully from the father’s share of the property. The second wife shouldn’t marry the guy until after the divorce property settlement involving the first wife has been finalised. Only then will she be eligible for a full part of the assets. As a consequence of this, the second wife is given the same status as a legally married woman, and she and her children are only permitted to assert their entitlement to women’s property rights so long as they remain in the marriage.
It was determined in the case of Khadal v. Hulash (1989) that if one party disputes the spousal relationship or duties, it entitles the other party to maintenance. This was ruled to be the case. In accordance with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), an individual is permitted to make a claim for the personal support of the person requesting the maintenance as well as for the expenses that they incurred while the procedures were ongoing. The claim cannot be brought until it is demonstrated that the individual making the claim does not possess the financial resources necessary to cover not only their own costs but also the costs associated with the proceedings before the court. After these facts have been established, the court may issue an order to pay the claimant on a monthly or periodic basis, in addition to a one-time payment for the costs associated with the proceedings.
Fees for the payment of stamp duty on newly acquired properties during a divorce
When one party sells their property to another, the buyer and seller each have to pay taxes on the transaction. For instance, the tax treatment of the sale of a property between brothers is exactly the same as the treatment of a sale on the open market. Even while the long-term capital gains tax does not apply to property that is transferred between spouses, there is still another tax that must be paid, and that is the stamp duty. Things are different despite the fact that there are no stamp duty concessions of this kind available when it comes to the transfer of property between separated spouses.
It is necessary for them to transfer the ownership of the property from their joint names into the name of one of the partners because each of them has a proportionate share of the money or other assets. If the transaction is the result of judicial separation or an agreement between the parties about divorce, nullity of the wedding, legal separation, or the dissolution of a civil partnership, then it is exempt from the stamp duty land tax. If the transaction is the result of any other circumstance, then it is subject to the tax. In order to apply for relief, you will be needed to submit a land transaction return.
Following a divorce, a wife may retain certain property rights, particularly those pertaining to movable assets.
The term “movable property” refers to any type of real estate that is not considered to be “immovable property.” The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 established this definition.
Stridhan
These are the assets, in accordance with the Smritikars, that are bestowed upon the woman at the time that she weds her husband. These items could include cash, jewellery, or other valuables. After the divorce, the rights to these properties will also belong to the wife. On the other hand, in situations when the husband has made a contribution toward the purchase of these items, he has the legal right to collect his share after the couple has divorced.
According to the court decision by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh, any property that the women obtained as a result of the partition would not be considered Stridhan but rather the estate of the women. However, following the passing of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, Section 14 of the Act established that any joint property that was received through partition would be considered an absolute property, also known as Stridhan. As the owner of absolute property, a woman has entire authority over the alienation of that property, which means that she is free to gift, sell, lease, trade, or mortgage it in any manner that she sees fit.
In the case of Bhagwandeen Doobey v. Maya Baee (1869), the Privy Council ruled that the properties that are given to the wife by the males would not come under the ambit of stridhan but would instead be known as the women’s estate. This decision was made in light of the fact that stridhan did not apply to properties that were given to the wife by the males.
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Others (1985) is the case in which the Supreme Court first established what constitutes Stridhan. This case is known as the “Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Others” case.
Before the ceremony began, the guests exchanged gifts.
Donations made during the ceremony of the wedding.
On the occasion of her marriage, her future mother-in-law or her future father-in-law may give her a gift as a sign of their affection for her.
There were presents brought by the women’s mothers, fathers, and brothers.
The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of Smt. Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1996) that when a wife entrusts her husband or any other member of the family with her property and that person willfully misappropriates it or allows someone else to do so, he commits the crime of Criminal Breach of Trust. The case was based on the fact that when a wife entrusts her husband or any other member of the family with her property
Speculation as well as insurance
The wife is not entitled to have control over the investments that the husband has made in his own name. In addition, she is unable to make a claim on any insurance policy for which the premiums have been paid using the name of the spouse.
In the event that the marriage is not terminated in accordance with the law and the couple has just begun living apart, the wife retains the right to make a claim on the insurance policy in the terrible event that the husband passes away.
Prior to a divorce, a wife may have certain property rights over her husband’s goods.
Even if there is now a solid comprehension of the rights of women in the event of a divorce, it is imperative that we investigate the rights that she possesses during the course of her marriage.
She is entitled to the right to receive support from her husband as well as the right to stay in the marital home.
If, on the other hand, the husband decides in his will to deny his wife the right to his property, she will not be able to stake a claim to it and it will not pass to her in his will.
Whether the property in question is mobile or immovable, a number of factors will decide the property rights of the woman with regard to her husband’s possessions. Even in situations where a couple is going through the process of divorce, the majority of problems occur during the process of dividing their property. At a time like this, one has a responsibility to be informed of their rights.
In the case of B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and Another (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that personal laws do indeed guarantee a wife’s right to remain in the marital home after the marriage has been consummated. A wife has the legal right to get support from her husband. Within the confines of his home, she is entitled to a place to reside as well as protection.
If she is obliged to live apart from her husband due to his behaviour, his unwillingness to keep her in his own house, or for any other cause that can be considered justified, she too has the right to separate residency. The woman is entitled to maintenance, which includes the right to a place to dwell in the household. In the context of spousal support, the term “wife” might refer to an individual who has been divorced.
Bharat Heavy Plates v. Vessels Ltd. is another significant case that pertains to this issue (1985) In this location, the family unit consisting of the husband, wife, and their three children used to call the housing given by the company home. However, after a few days had passed, the couple began to have differences of opinion, which ultimately led to the husband leaving the marital house.
Not only did he vacate the property, but he also terminated his lease agreement with the corporation by writing a letter to them. The wife filed a petition in court seeking an injunction to prevent them from being evicted from the house. The court took into consideration the facts that the employee was supposed to use the quarter and that the spouse was required to provide housing for his wife and children.
The marital dwelling, in which the wife also lived, was recognised as such by both the husband and the corporation as having been located within the quarter. It was mandated that a certain amount of rent should be deducted from the salary of the husband.
Conclusion
Divorce can be an extremely stressful situation for both the man and the women involved. During the process of getting a divorce, in addition to the emotional strain, there are a lot of legal concerns that need to be resolved, which adds to the overall level of stress.
Not only should there be provisions in the law that give the court the power to make arrangements and settlements with regards to properties that are owned jointly or individually, but there should also be provisions that give the court the power to do so in favour of either party or both parties’ children, as their children are the ones who are most negatively affected by the proceedings.
The rights of women to their own property have grown and expanded over the course of history in India, helping to improve the lot of women there. Especially in nations like India, where the majority of working women are given relatively low wages or do not work at all, having financial support after a divorce becomes incredibly vital.
Sometimes a woman is unable to get a divorce due to financial constraints, and as a result, she is forced to continue living in deplorable conditions. Because of this, it is becoming increasingly crucial to have regulations that assist women in maturing into autonomous adults. However, this does not mean that men should have their rights stripped away in order to make room for women’s rights. There must be some kind of equilibrium.
Frequently Asked Questions and Their Answers (FAQs)
After a divorce, is it feasible for a woman to pursue a claim to property?
During the divorce process, a woman has the ability to argue in court for her rights and her share of the property. In a scenario like this one, if the property is only in the name of the husband, the wife has no chance of obtaining a portion of the property unless she can provide evidence that she gave up her share while the property was being purchased.
What property rights do divorced women have to a shared property if the couple previously lived together?
After the completion of the procedure for seeking a divorce, the wife will have the right to take ownership of the property if it was registered as a joint property by the couple that is getting married. The judge will determine how much of a share he is entitled to give him depending on what he contributed to the property.
Is it feasible for a divorced wife to file a claim on the estate of her former mother-in-law?
The wife is not eligible to make a claim on the ancestral property until such time as the property has been partitioned and the husband is in possession of a share in the property.
