My family wants to give entire ancestral property to my brother. How can I ask for equality?
If this is an ancestral property, you'll get a share in it, but if it's earned by your parents, you'd have to rely on their will. You claim that you too, have a right on it. This seems very logical and apt right now when you're single and have no other family to support.Imagine the scenario when you get married, will you be able to take responsibilities of your parents while keeping your in-laws and your husband happy and contend? Just paint the picture.I'm not saying that you can't, maybe you will, maybe you won't! If you won't, there will be no one to blame you nor you'll be held guilty for not taking responsibilities of your parents, as, technicaly you never were responsible for them.But in case your brother doesn't, he will be in the jaws of the society and will be cursed and blamed and what not, just because he's the "son".You yourself said " if the situation arises " then you'll be willing to help your parents just like a son, but your son will always be responsible for your parents whether the situations arise or not, and that's just because he's the "son".And won't your husband inherit property from his family? Would you agree taking responsibilities of your in-laws when your sister-in-law demads equal share in their property? Would stand by your sister-in-law when she demands? Would you stand for equality, as ferociously then as you are doing it for yourself now? Would you make your home, a home for your parents as well, not depending on whether the situations arises or not, but just like your brother because he's a " guy"? Can you assure that you will never back out from helping them no matter what happens?If yes, only then your claim is valid, otherwise let your brother have it. Let him have the resources to take care of your parents properly everytime everyday without depending upon the situations.P.S. I'm not saying that once a girl is married off she's not a part of the family any more, but now she's a part of some other family too, and that changes everything. You just can't get on both the boats. Especially in India, it's very rare, but if you get along with responsibilities of both the families, then you should get what you claim. And yes definitely if it's an ancestral property you'll get your share, but you can't force your parents or legally claim your share from the property they've earned.
Why do libs avoid President Bush's Accomplishments?
Great post! Libs quake at the thought of people who do things the right way.
Does a wife have rights to her husband’s property?
Under Hindu Law, wife has the right to her husband’s property after his death or after divorce.Under Hindu Succession Act 1956, a married woman can inherit her husband’s property only after the death of the husband, provided the husband dies intestate. What this means is -wife does not get an automatic right to her husband’s property upon marriage &husband should not have expressly excluded or denied her share in his will.Even in case of husband’s ancestral property, wife does not have the right to it unless and until she inherits from the deceased husband.To protect interests of women after divorce, Marriage Law’s (Amendment) Bill 2010 was passed by the cabinet, which is pending for discussion in Rajya Sabha and some major changes in the women rights are suggested, on how the properties would be divided after divorce. Accordingly, a wife gets 50% share in her husband’s self-acquired property after divorce.Although this law has been severely criticized for being anti-male, the law as it stands now, grants wife a 50% share in husband’s self-acquired residential property. She gets a share in other properties as well but the quantum has not been laid down. “living standard of the wife” is the criteria to determine the quantum of wife’s share in other properties.Illustration 1:‘A’ marries ‘B’. ‘B’ being the wife. ‘B’ does not have the right to ‘A’s property during his lifetime. She inherits her husband’s property only after his death unless otherwise expressly mentioned in the will of the deceased.Illustration 2:‘B’ divorces ‘A’ by mutual consent. ‘B’ has the right to claim 50% of ‘A’s property after divorce.
Who can be more dangerous - a psychopath or a sociopath?
I think sociopaths are more dangerous to a persons emotional health. my mother is a sociopath and she would lie, manipulate, imitate emotions of empathy, steal and cheat to get what she wanted with no regards to what damage she did to anyone in the process...basically they do anything to get ahead and they are very subtle....you won't know you've been had until its too late and they leave you in pieces and you won't know what hit you and this helps them thrive and become more powerful psychopaths are more dangerous to you physically in my opinion. they are less subtle and more out in the open when it comes to hurting people. they will physically abuse you, degrade you, knock your self esteem down and they won't stop until they succeed. both are extremely dangerous and there is no cure for sociopaths.....although cognitive behavioral therapy might help slightly
Did Prophet Muhammad actually give Fadak (the orchids garden) to Fatimah, his daughter?
HAzrat Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam regarded the property as inheritance and since prophets do not leave inheritance , only charity. It was owned by the state and its gains were distributed among the People.Although Fatima PBUH did claim that the FADAK was a gift, she could not present two independent witnesses in that favor. As for the inheritance, Prophet SAWW himself said that Prophets do not inherit which had multiple witnesses including Fatima PBUH. Hazrat Abu Bakr’s decision was just and according to the law and Hazrat Ali, the beloved husband of Fatima PBUH agreed upon this. Please read:Allah's Apostle said, "Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity.' and he said it about himself?" They (i.e. 'Uthman and his company) said, "He did say it. "'Umar then turned towards 'Ali and 'Abbas and said, "I beseech you both, by Allah! Do you know that Allah's Apostle said this?" They [Ali and Abbas ] replied in the affirmative.[Sahih Bukhari Book 5 59 Hadith 367 ]It is true that the relationship strained a bit(quite natural) but it was overcome. However, the issue of Fadak was never discussed again in her life. The most important aspect of this decision relating to Fadak was that Hazrat Ali PBUH, Fatima PBUH’s husband, never returned it when he became caliph and assumed power thereby agreeing with Hazrat Abu Bakr’s Stance.“When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi)References:-This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7:273-281) who said: “It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain.”-Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) -Imam Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid).-Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.Take care
Ladies would you sign a prenuptial agreement?
Heck yea I would sign a pre-nup before getting married and then getting divorced . Cause although I think people should trust their spouses and love them for all time once they are married is a great idea. I am a realist and know that I have some assets already that someone that could try and kill me for if they were rather greedy and so by having a pre-nup I could ensure that my future hubby doesn't get them if there was any foul play. Same would be true if he had any assets like that before the marriage too. I also think that the pre-nup would be good for leaving any kids from prior relationships any money or assets that are meant for them and keep the spouse from trying to claim them and leading to family drama that way. I would also do it to stipulate if any one cheats after being married for so many years there would be an immediate divorce if it was a long affair or something. But yea for reasons like that I would definitely sign a pre-nup. And definitely upon talking to a lawyer further about what all we could have protected and covered, I would then and still sign the pre-nup. Cause the fact of the matter is, that when you get married, you are feeling all the feel good feelings the first few years. But once the going gets tough, people can change for the better or more likely for the worse and I don't want to be caught up in the worse and feel deceived and stupid after the divorce. So better to be smart and safe and not sorry. I will add too for the ladies that said they wouldn't sign it because the marriage is supposed to be about love and trust and not what you. But keep in mind you walk into a marriage one way, you leave it with another perspective which may not always be the best one about each other. And the pre-nup is all about protecting assets obtained before the marriage, what is obtained together during the marriage is what is split up upon the divorce. So the mine is yours stuff gets taken care of during the divorce proceedings. But if you inherited any jewelry or whatever from your family and stuff before getting married the spouse has no claim over that. And that should be important, cause I think by not having a pre-nup you could lose valuables in no time flat cause they weren't protected before hand.
Is a staffie/rottweiler cross good with children?
The rottweiler breed have gotten a very bad rep' lately but that is only because Junkyard owners take these dogs, confine them in dark rooms and let them loose to tear people apart. I am assuming your dog is socialised so yes it should be O.K as long as your kids are attended at all times (just in case) the best dog for kids is proven to be st' bernard but any socialised dog would be ok since they are all friendly by nature. there are no bad dogs just bad owners.