Case Law Details
Sonia Fazal Khan Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
In this case Asif (Son) says that although his parents are alive, there are two flats and both are what he describes as ‘a shared household’ and therefore he, the son, has some sort of enforceable legal right or entitlement to either or both of these flats. The submission is so ill-founded and illogical that it only needs to be stated to be rejected.
In any conceptualization of succession law for any community or faith, Asif can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats — one in his father’s name and other in his mother’s name — so long as his parents are alive. The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable. The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats ‘a shared household’.
9. The fact that Asif may have been advised (or ill-advised) to adopt some domestic violence proceedings against his sisters is utterly immaterial. We do not see how Asif can complain of domestic violence when he is demonstrably not part of the domestic set-up to begin with.
10. Asif has no rights in his father’s flats. He has nothing to show that he has ever cared for his father.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
