Capricorn Daily Horoscope Today, 28th July 2025: Think Bigger, But Double-Check Everything
The Moon in the sign can stir deep emotional reflection. Mars is transiting into the Virgo sign. It energises your quest for knowledge, travel, and long-term vision.
ET Online You are feeling motivated to expand your professional horizons. Mars supports higher learning and strategic thinking. It is perfect for research, planning, or long-term projects. Mercury is retrograde. You may distort all facts. You should verify all information carefully.Opportunities may arise from distant contacts or educational ventures. You need to be cautious about your international transactions or travel expenses. You need the time to review your financial roadmap rather than initiate major changes.
You can crave meaningful conversations and shared ideals. You need to keep your expectations grounded. You can be patient if a loved one needs time to open.Mental stimulation and a change of environment will uplift your mood. You need to explore nature or engage in a calming hobby for balance.
Written by: Anand Sagar Pathak of Astropatri.com. For feedback, write to hello@astropatri.com
Also Read:
Monthly Horoscope Capricorn, August 2025
Weekly Horoscope Capricorn, 28th July to 3rd Aug, 2025
Disclaimer Statement: This content is authored by a 3rd party. The views expressed here are that of the respective authors/ entities and do not represent the views of Economic Times (ET). ET does not guarantee, vouch for or endorse any of its contents nor is responsible for them in any manner whatsoever. Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that any information and content provided is correct, updated, and verified. ET hereby disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, relating to the report and any content therein.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Divorce: Even if wife is earning husband is liable to pay maintenance money to her in this condition, says High Court
ET Online (Representative image) Why husband lost divorce maintenance case On June 18, 2025, a husband lost a divorce maintenance case in the Bombay High Court as the court held that merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of the support from her husband, especially when it comes to maintaining the same standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The husband argued that about three years into their marriage, things started to get tense. He alleged that she was throwing tantrums and treated him very badly. The husband also mentioned that he bought a new flat hoping it would be comfortable for her, but her attitude still did not change. She kept making demands that he just could not meet, which led him to file for divorce. Soon after the husband filed for divorce, the wife submitted a maintenance petition in court. The high court while hearing the maintenance petition noted that the husband lives in a posh locality in Mumbai and his father also gets pension while the wife is a school teacher and lives with her parents who in turn live at their brother's house. The Bombay High Court said: 'Because of her meager earning, she is constrained to stay in the house of her brother along with her parents causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them. In such an income she is not in a position to live a decent life. As against it, if compared against the Petitioner's (husband's) income, his income is far more than the Respondent-wife's, with no financial responsibilities on him.'The husband did not want to pay any maintenance money as he alleged that he might be earning a more than her but he had necessary expenses like looking after his senior citizen parents. The Bombay High Court agreed with his argument but said that the maintenance amount that the court ordered him to pay isn't so big that it will lead to financial issues for Bombay High Court also applied the eight factors laid down by the Supreme Court in the Pravin Kumar Jain V/s. Anju Jain ((2025) 2 SCC 227) case for calculating maintenance money amount in divorce cases. These eight factors helped the court to determine how much money the husband should pay as out the details below to know more about why this husband lost the case and the wife won. The legal arguments and insights from this case can help you in similar situations. How did this divorce maintenance case start? According to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here are the details: November 28, 2012: The marriage took place. May 2015: The wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. June 2019: The husband filed a divorce petition in Bandra family court under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. September 29, 2021: The wife filed an interim application for maintenance. August 24, 2023: The family court decided to grant maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs 15,000 per month from October 1, 2022 till the disposal of the petition. The husband challenged this order and filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court. Also read: Elderly parents facing 498A charges, win eviction case against daughter-in-law after 6-year fight; here's what happened What did the Bombay High Court say? The Bombay High Court said: (No part of the judgement is changed and everything is as per what the court said) The claim of the Petitioner has been falsified by the salary slips annexed to the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent herein for the months of April 2022 and September 2022, which discloses his net pay as Rs 1,51,284 and Rs 1,17,338 respectively. It also needs consideration that, though he claims that his parents are dependent on him, his own affidavit discloses that his father draws a pension of Rs 28,000 per month. Therefore, his parents are not financially dependent on him and in fact they must be contributing to the monthly maintenance of the family. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner has not disclosed his true income in the affidavit of assets and liabilities. The salary slips placed on record disclose his income above Rs 1,00,000. The Respondent-wife has disclosed her income to be Rs 18,000 per month from her salary as an Assistant Teacher working in a Convent School. Though it is claimed by the Petitioner that the Respondent-wife has an additional income from the interest of the Fixed Deposits, the interest is negligible. Even the income from tuition classes cannot be said to be a permanent source of income. Bombay High Court final judgement Judgement: 'I do not find the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is unreasonable or extreme. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not warrant interference. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.' Legal reasoning: The Bombay High Court said: 'There is a huge disparity in the income of the Petitioner and the Respondent, which cannot be compared. The Respondent-wife is certainly entitled to be maintained with the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before their separation. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the considerations that are required to be taken into consideration are the income of the respective parties; their age; their responsibilities; their reasonable needs; necessities and income derived from other sources, if any.' Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided Supreme Court precedent applied in this case The Bombay High Court said: 'A useful reference can be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pravin Kumar Jain V/s. Anju Jain. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment has once again reiterated the guidelines for fixing the amount of maintenance. Though it is observed that there cannot be a strict guidelines or fixed formula, but referring to the earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided the factors to be looked into while granting maintenance, which reads thus: Status of the parties, social and financial. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. Any employment sacrifices made for responsibilities. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. The Bombay High Court said: 'The factors have been laid down on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh V/s. Neha and Anr. 2 as well as Kiran Jyot Maini V/s. Anish Pramod Patel.3 Applying the above factors to the fact of the present case, the wife needs to be granted maintenance from the income of the husband since her own income is insufficient for her maintenance.' How did Bombay High Court apply the Supreme Court precedent in the present case? The Bombay High Court said: In the present case though the wife is earning, the said income is not sufficient for her own maintenance since she has to travel daily a long distance for her job. She is staying with her parents which she cannot stay indefinitely. Because of her meager earning, she is constrained to stay in the house of her brother along with her parents causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them. In such an income she is not in a position to live a decent life. As against, it if compared against the Petitioner's income, his income is far more than the Respondent-wife's, with no financial responsibilities on him. Even assuming the certain expenses must be necessary for the maintenance of himself and the family members whom he is obliged to maintain, the amount that remains is sufficient enough to enable him to support the Respondent-wife as per the order passed by the Judge, Family Court at Bandra. Merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she is accustomed to in her matrimonial home. Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "Maintenance laws in India are completely flawed against the men. Maintenance and quantum of maintenance to estranged wives is being looked upon as a legal right, irrespective of the outcome of the main divorce matter, and purely on the basis of husband's ongoing and increasing income. In the current case, parties got married in November 2012 and have been living separately since May 2015, cohabitation being less than 3 years and no children. Despite not staying together for the past 10 years, the husband is made liable to provide an equal standard of living. Without getting into the merits of income affidavits supported from both sides, I certainly wish to highlight how men are penalised for years and decades if they approach court for justice." What is the significance of this judgement? ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said: Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, says: The Court, reaffirmed that mere employment of the wife does not absolve the husband of his statutory obligation to provide for her sustenance, especially where her earnings are insufficient to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship. The ruling highlights that the principle of maintenance is not predicated solely on income but rather on the holistic assessment of the respective financial capacities of the parties, their standard of living, and reasonable needs. More importantly, the Court came down heavily on the suppression of material facts and misstatement of income by the Petitioner-husband, who had disclosed a drastically understated figure in his affidavit of assets and liabilities, which was palpably contradicted by salary slips placed on record by the Respondent. Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis says: This judgment reinforces the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of maintenance. Merely because a wife is working and having income is not sufficient for a husband to disclaim his liability to pay maintenance. For grant of maintenance, all the factors must be considered with the principle objective of maintaining the same standard of living that the wife was maintaining with the husband. Chinmay Bhosale, Advocate, Bombay High Court, says: This judgment reiterates the stand of the Supreme Court that even if the wife is educated and has an earning job , she is entitled to maintenance if her income is not sufficient to maintain the standard of living . This is a very significant ruling from the perspective of men. It raises alarming questions surrounding gender equality rights & men's rights. A rising trend of transferring all assets to parents before marriage is seen due to such judicial norms being mandated in the country. Siddharth Joshi, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: The Court while ascertaining the interim maintenance to be paid to wife will consider these additional factors in addition to income earned by husband: (a) Income of the parents of the husband(b) Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.(c) Reasonable needs of the wife.(d) Assets owned by the the position taken by Bombay High Court, the husband must be very conscious while appealing an interim order of maintenance and must not base the challenge only on the income earned by him and his wife. Husbands while litigating the maintenance orders must look into the income of the family as a whole and the standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. N.R. Narayana Murthy Founder, Infosys Watch Now Harsh Mariwala Chairman & Founder, Marico Watch Now Adar Poonawalla CEO, Serum Institute of India Watch Now Ronnie Screwvala Chairperson & Co-founder, upGrad Watch Now Puneet Dalmia Managing Director, Dalmia Bharat group Watch Now Martin Schwenk Former President & CEO, Mercedes-Benz, Thailand Watch Now Nadir Godrej Managing Director, of Godrej Industries Watch Now Manu Jain Former- Global Vice President, Xiaomi Watch Now Nithin Kamath Founder, CEO, Zerodha Watch Now Anil Agarwal Executive Chairman, Vedanta Resources Watch Now Dr. Prathap C. Reddy Founder Chairman, Apollo Hospitals Watch Now Vikram Kirloskar Former Vice Chairman, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Watch Now Kiran Mazumdar Shaw Executive Chairperson, Biocon Limited Watch Now Shashi Kiran Shetty Chairman of Allcargo Logistics, ECU Worldwide and Gati Ltd Watch Now Samir K Modi Managing Director, Modi Enterprises Watch Now R Gopalakrishnan Former Director Tata Sons, Former Vice Chairman, HUL Watch Now Sanjiv Mehta Former Chairman / CEO, Hindustan Unilever Watch Now Dr Ajai Chowdhry Co-Founder, HCL, Chairman EPIC Foundation, Author, Just Aspire Watch Now Shiv Khera Author, Business Consultant, Motivational Speaker Watch Now Nakul Anand Executive Director, ITC Limited Watch Now RS Sodhi Former MD, Amul & President, Indian Dairy Association Watch Now Anil Rai Gupta Managing Director & Chairman, Havells Watch Now Zia Mody Co-Founder & Managing Partner, AZB & Partners Watch Now Arundhati Bhattacharya Chairperson & CEO, Salesforce India Watch Now
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Elderly parents facing 498A charges, win eviction case against daughter-in-law after 6-year fight; here's what happened
ET Online (Representative image) Elderly parents win eviction case against daughter-in-law after 6 years' fight under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act A husband faced a tough situation when both his wife and elderly parents filed legal cases against him in court, for different reasons. The wife filed cases under Section 498A (criminal), domestic violence (criminal) and matrimonial law against the husband and his parents. His parents, aged 66 and 67, filed a case to evict him and his wife from their house property. The husband's elderly parents alleged that they had allowed their son and daughter- in-law to reside in their house due to their immediate needs after their love marriage. However, after the daughter-in-law initiated criminal litigation(s) against them, they approached the Senior Citizens' Tribunal seeking the eviction of the son and daughter-in-law from their house. In 2019, the Tribunal ordered both the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. In 2020, the wife filed an appeal against the order of the tribunal and ultimately won, resulting in the cancellation of the tribunal's eviction order. That is when the husband's elderly parents approached the Bombay High Court. In a judgment that will have a strong and positive impact on the rights of senior citizens going forward, the Bombay High Court on June 18, 2025, rejected the wife's claim to reside in her in-laws' house property after filing criminal cases against them and ordered the son and wife to vacate the house within 30 days of the order and directed them to pay rent in arrears to the elderly June 18, 2025, the Bombay High Court said: 'This petition, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by senior citizens depicts the plight of the senior citizens who are required to contest litigations against their own son and daughter-in law to enable them to enjoy their own house property.'Regarding the eviction order, wife's lawyers argued in court that she has a right to reside in the said property owned by her in-laws mainly because of pendency of matrimonial proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband and also the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the legal argument put forth by the wife's lawyers. The Bombay High Court stated: '...Only because the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (husband and wife) were allowed by his parents to reside in their house, the same cannot be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law particularly when her relations with the son have turned hostile. In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire…'Parallel to this eviction case, the son (husband) had kept on fighting his own separate legal battle, namely the Section 498A, Domestic Violence, and other cases, in court and was ultimately acquitted i.e. freed from the criminal and matrimonial charges in reading to know the details and the legal reasonings used in this case and the reason the wife lost the case. How did this tenant eviction case start? Here we are talking about the tenant eviction case filed by the husband's senior citizen parents. The criminal and matrimonial cases filed by the wife are a separate legal case. According to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here is the timeline of events as they happened: 2008: Husband's parents buy a Bungalow using their own funds. Husband's parents buy a Bungalow using their own funds. 2016: Wife files criminal and matrimonial case against the husband and his parents (in-laws). Wife files criminal and matrimonial case against the husband and his parents (in-laws). 2019: The husband's parents who became senior citizens at that time, filed a case for eviction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Sub Divisional Officer of the Senior Citizen tribunal allowed the application and directed the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. The husband's parents who became senior citizens at that time, filed a case for eviction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Sub Divisional Officer of the Senior Citizen tribunal allowed the application and directed the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. August 7, 2020: The wife filed an appeal against the Sub Divisional Officer's order in the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal. The appellate tribunal accepted the appeal and cancelled the eviction order against the husband and wife. The tribunal said this matter is in the nature of a civil dispute and so the appropriate court should be approached for this. The senior citizen parents soon filed an appeal against this order in the Bombay High Court. What did the senior citizen parents of the husband say before Bombay High Court? According to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here's a summary of what the parents said. They were represented by the Assistant Government Pleader: (The arguments are exactly as per the judgement, however some repetitive portions have been omitted) It is the case of the petitioners' (parents) that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners who have performed love marriage and requested for allowing them to stay in their house and accordingly the petitioners allowed them to reside in the said property. The petitioners had alleged that they allowed their son and daughter- in-law to reside in their home considering their immediate needs after their marriage. However, after the daughter in law started frivolous litigations against them, they approached the Tribunal seeking eviction from their house. On account of disputes in between respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondent No.4 (wife) started harassing the petitioners and she even filed criminal cases against the petitioners, apart from matrimonial proceedings against her husband. The petitioners' case is that they have obtained a loan to purchase the said property which they are repaying but are now deprived from enjoying their own property and therefore they were constrained to approach the Tribunal under Section 5 r/w 20 of the Act. Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided The Bombay High Court says that the wife's primary contention does not stand The Bombay High Court said: The primary contention of respondent No.4 (wife) as deduced from her memorandum of Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is her right to claim maintenance and to reside in the property and her contentions about pendency of the matrimonial proceedings and criminal case against her husband and petitioners. However, it is crucial to note that there is nothing on record in the nature of any order or decree directing grant of maintenance or right to reside in favour of respondent No.4. Neither there is any specific order under the provisions of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in favour of respondent No.4 to claim residence in the property of the petitioners. Thus, apart from her bare contentions in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, there is no document on record establishing any right in favour of respondent No.4 to reside in the suit property. It has to be noted that the petitioners have filed on record a copy of judgment in Regular Criminal Case No.106 of 2016 dated 13.09.2023, by which the petitioners and their son are acquitted from the criminal case. Also read: Matrimonial Dispute: Husband loses job after wife wins case; Know how this impacts private and government employees Bombay HC aks why does the wife who has a 3-bedroom house in her name need to reside in the husband's parents' house? The Bombay High Court said: Pertinent to note, the petitioners (parents) have filed on record an affidavit dated 19.06.2024 categorically stating therein that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent No.4 (wife) has purchased a house property by way of registered sale deed dated 27.08.2021, consisting of three bedrooms and presently she is residing in the said house. It is stated that despite her own independent house property, the respondent No.4 is also occupying a portion of the suit property belonging to the petitioners. Along with this affidavit the petitioners have also filed on record copy of sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. It is important to note, respondent No.4 (wife) has not filed any counter affidavit disputing this categorical assertion by the petitioners. In the wake of these factual aspects, it has to be inferred that the respondent No.4 (wife) has failed to establish any right to occupy or reside in the suit property. Bombay High Court says elderly parents cannot be compelled to let son & his wife stay in their house against their wishes The Bombay High Court said: It is crucial to note that the suit property is self-acquired property of the petitioners and the son and daughter-in-law had failed to establish any legal right to reside in that house. As stated earlier, only because respondent Nos.3 and 4 (husband and wife) were allowed by the petitioners to reside in their house, the same cannot be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law particularly when her relations with the son have turned hostile. In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire. As such there is no legal basis for the claim of the respondent no.4 to reside in the petitioners' house and on the contrary the petitioners are entitled to invoke provisions of the Act to seek eviction of the respondents no.3 and 4. Bombay HC: Wife can independently pursue her right to claim maintenance or right to reside in the property of her husband The Bombay High Court said: As regards, the contentions of respondent No.4 (wife) based on her right to claim maintenance or right to reside in the property of her husband, the same can be independently enforced by her, if a situation arises. However, under the pretext of enforcing her rights arising out of any matrimonial proceedings as against her husband, she cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of her parents-in-law which are independently protected under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. As such, the competing rights of the daughter-in-law cannot be compromised at the cost of the rights of the senior citizens to enjoy their own property independently. Thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, particularly, considering the legal position, directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for eviction of their daughter-in-law would be detrimental and would defeat the purpose of the enactment. In the light of the factual and legal opinion I am of the firm view that the Appellate Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the appeal and directing the parties to approach civil court for seeking eviction. Bombay High Court final judgement Judgement: 'On consideration of the overall factual and legal aspects of the matter, the instant petition needs to be allowed. The impugned order dated 07.08.2020 passed by respondent No.1-Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal/District Collector, Nandurbar, in case No.2020/home/Division2/Appeal/4/2020 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Officer in Case No. 2019/Senior Citizen/Kavi/02 is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to vacate the house property of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment.' Bombay High Court directs husband and wife to pay rent in arrears to the elderly parents While announcing this judgement, the Bombay High Court said: In the instant case, the conduct of respondent No.4 daughter-in-law which has constrained the petitioners to initiate legal proceedings, warrants serious and thoughtful consideration. The appeal u/s 16 (1) was filed only by the respondent no.4. Although respondent No.4 has contested the proceedings before the Tribunal and Appellate Authority, however, she has blatantly ignored the mandate of the order passed by this court. It has to be noted that despite a specific order passed by this Court on 21.12.2022, directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 (husband and wife) to deposit an amount of Rs 20,000 per month towards occupation of the suit property from the date of order passed by the Tribunal, the same is not at all compiled by them. It is apparent that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent No.4 has continued to occupy the petitioners' home in absence of any right in her favour thereby compelling the petitioners to indulge in litigations up to this court. This conduct on the part of respondent No.4 (wife) is deprecated. Since respondent No. 3 and 4 have failed to comply with the mandate of the order passed by this Court directing to pay Rs 20,000 per month from the date of order of the Tribunal i.e. 18 February 2019, it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to comply with the said order. Accordingly, the respondent no. 3 and 4 (husband and wife) are directed to comply and pay to the petitioners the entire amount of arrears at the earliest and also to bear with the costs of the instant petition. What is the significance of this case for senior citizens and husbands? ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said: Rahul Hingmire, Managing Partner, Vis Legis Law Practice says: This judgment is a landmark for senior citizens asserting their legal right to exclusive residence and protection of self-acquired property. It affirms that ownership and peaceful possession cannot be overridden by vague claims from children or in-laws. The court strongly upheld a husband's right to safeguard his parents' property from wrongful occupation by a daughter-in-law, making it clear that pending matrimonial disputes or domestic violence proceedings do not grant her any independent residency rights in her in-laws' home. It clarified that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not limited to maintenance but also ensures statutory protection of property rights for elders, which cannot be overridden by personal law claims. Abhinay Sharma, Managing Partner, ASL Partners, says: This Bombay High Court's ruling is a landmark for two reasons: It strengthens the legal position of senior citizens who seek protection from within their own homes, and it draws necessary limits on the misuse of matrimonial litigation to interfere with the independent rights of the elderly. It will serve as a guiding precedent for Tribunals and courts across the country dealing with similar inter-generational disputes. A. Impact on Senior Citizens This judgment will have a strong and positive impact on the rights of senior citizens going forward. It clarifies and reinforces that senior citizens need not approach civil courts to reclaim peaceful possession of their self-acquired homes when facing harassment or interference from their own children or in-laws. The ruling makes it clear that Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have the power to order eviction where required to protect the dignity and property rights of the Hon'ble Court has taken a firm stand that the Act is not limited to maintenance but must be interpreted to include the protection of property and safety of senior citizens. In its own words:This judgment will empower senior citizens in future to assert their rights under the Act with greater confidence. It sets a precedent that they cannot be forced to tolerate continued occupation of their home by children or in-laws who misuse the family relationship or resort to litigation to delay eviction. It ensures that the very purpose of the Act is to provide quick, effective, and compassionate remedies will not be defeated by technical objections or delays. B. Impact on Husbands in Matrimonial Disputes For husbands facing matrimonial litigation, this judgment brings clarity and balance, particularly in situations where disputes between spouses spill over into conflicts involving the husband's parents and their property. The Hon'ble High Court has drawn a clear legal boundary: a wife cannot claim a right to reside in her in-laws' house unless she has a specific legal order granting her that right, especially where the property is self-acquired by the parents and not part of any shared matrimonial ruling is likely to reduce the misuse of pending matrimonial or criminal cases as a means to occupy or take control of property belonging to elderly in-laws. The Hon'ble Court noted that the daughter-in-law in the case had neither any judicial order granting her residence rights nor any legal interest in the property. Despite this, she continued to occupy the house and ignored court directions. The Court made it clear that going forward, this judgment will serve as a precedent that husbands cannot be used as a conduit to interfere with or deny the statutory rights of their parents. It reinforces that while a wife may have enforceable rights against her husband under matrimonial law, those rights do not extend to taking over property owned solely by her in-laws, unless backed by a specific legal entitlement. This will help reduce prolonged and unjustified occupation of elderly parents' homes during family disputes. Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: This judgment reinforces the principles and objectives behind The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which are clearly aimed at protecting the life and liberty of the Senior Citizens, particularly, from their own children and their spouses. This judgment should act as a deterrent to those people and spouses who mistreat their elderly parents and attempt to oust them out of their own homes. Sneha Bhogle Kale, Senior Partner, Accord Juris LLP, says: This case merely reiterated previous rulings in 2018 in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane and affirms that the Senior Citizens Act is a welfare statute to protect elderly rights and ensure their safety and well being. The children have got no legal rights to reside in the house of their parents and mere permission doesn't confer a legal right. The tribunals for this specific purpose are meant to ensure speedy and affordable remedies. Several courts have held consistently that senior citizens can evict children from their self acquired property if ill treated. This judgment passed by the Bombay High Court gives the senior citizens an awareness about their rights and affirms that their rights have to be safeguarded and they do have a right to live with dignity and self also assures them that their hard earned money is not left in the hands of greedy children who fail to take care of them in their old age. It puts a sense of fear among the children that they cannot ill treat their ageing parents as they can be evicted from their parents house if they don't treat them with dignity and respect. N.R. Narayana Murthy Founder, Infosys Watch Now Harsh Mariwala Chairman & Founder, Marico Watch Now Adar Poonawalla CEO, Serum Institute of India Watch Now Ronnie Screwvala Chairperson & Co-founder, upGrad Watch Now Puneet Dalmia Managing Director, Dalmia Bharat group Watch Now Martin Schwenk Former President & CEO, Mercedes-Benz, Thailand Watch Now Nadir Godrej Managing Director, of Godrej Industries Watch Now Manu Jain Former- Global Vice President, Xiaomi Watch Now Nithin Kamath Founder, CEO, Zerodha Watch Now Anil Agarwal Executive Chairman, Vedanta Resources Watch Now Dr. Prathap C. Reddy Founder Chairman, Apollo Hospitals Watch Now Vikram Kirloskar Former Vice Chairman, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Watch Now Kiran Mazumdar Shaw Executive Chairperson, Biocon Limited Watch Now Shashi Kiran Shetty Chairman of Allcargo Logistics, ECU Worldwide and Gati Ltd Watch Now Samir K Modi Managing Director, Modi Enterprises Watch Now R Gopalakrishnan Former Director Tata Sons, Former Vice Chairman, HUL Watch Now Sanjiv Mehta Former Chairman / CEO, Hindustan Unilever Watch Now Dr Ajai Chowdhry Co-Founder, HCL, Chairman EPIC Foundation, Author, Just Aspire Watch Now Shiv Khera Author, Business Consultant, Motivational Speaker Watch Now Nakul Anand Executive Director, ITC Limited Watch Now RS Sodhi Former MD, Amul & President, Indian Dairy Association Watch Now Anil Rai Gupta Managing Director & Chairman, Havells Watch Now Zia Mody Co-Founder & Managing Partner, AZB & Partners Watch Now Arundhati Bhattacharya Chairperson & CEO, Salesforce India Watch Now
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Canada visa lottery: 17860 parents, grandparents of migrants invited for PR
Canada has reopened its Parents and Grandparents Program for 2025, with IRCC sending 17,860 invitations by lottery. Selected applicants must apply by October 9 Surbhi Gloria Singh New Delhi If you're looking forward to bringing your loved ones from India to Canada, the federal government on July 28 reopened the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP) for 2025. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has started issuing invitations to apply (ITAs) to permanent residents and Canadian citizens wishing to sponsor their parents or grandparents. The deadline to submit a complete application is 11:59 pm ET, October 9, 2025. What is the Parents and Grandparents Program? The PGP offers a pathway to permanent residency for parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or registered Indians. Here's how the process works: • You must have submitted an interest-to-sponsor form in 2020 • Applicants are selected through a random draw • Only those invited in the draw can submit a sponsorship application • The sponsor must meet income and eligibility criteria laid out by IRCC 'Over the next two weeks, IRCC will issue 17,860 invitations to apply from the 2020 pool,' the department said on its website. 'We're working toward accepting up to 10,000 complete applications this year.' Those selected are contacted via email and must submit their applications online using the Permanent Residence Portal. Two-step application process Sponsors and their parents or grandparents must each complete a separate application: Sponsorship application: Submitted by the sponsor Permanent residence application: Completed by the parent or grandparent being sponsored IRCC requires that both applications be submitted together online. If more than one person is being sponsored, a separate permanent residence application must be completed for each. Some exceptions may be granted for those unable to apply digitally. Which forms are required? Sponsors must complete and upload the following: IMM 1344 (sponsorship agreement) IMM 5771 (document checklist) IMM 5768 (financial evaluation) Parents and grandparents being sponsored must submit: IMM 0008 (generic application) IMM 5669 (background/declaration) IMM 5406 (additional family information) Detailed guidance is available in IRCC's instruction manual, Guide IMM 5772. How much does it cost? For a single applicant, the total government fee comes to CAD 1,205 (about ₹76,000). This includes: Sponsorship fee: CAD 85 Processing fee (for the principal applicant): CAD 545 Right of permanent residence fee: CAD 575 If a spouse, partner, or dependent child is included, additional fees apply. Medical exams, police certificates, and biometrics may incur extra costs and are handled separately by authorised third parties. After submission: What to expect According to IRCC, applicants must include a copy of their invitation when applying. Any application missing key documents may be returned unless the missing pieces are submitted within 30 days. Once the application is submitted: • Applicants must undergo medical examinations • Police certificates (valid for one year) must be uploaded • Biometrics (fingerprints and photo) are mandatory for all applicants aged 14 to 79 IRCC recommends keeping copies of all submitted documents and regularly checking the status of the application online. Failure to follow instructions or meet deadlines could lead to a refusal or delay in processing.
