The bench of Justices Nahkul Subedi, Tek Prasad Dhungana and Balkrishna Dhakal has explained that the property earned by father, mother and step-mother has the same rights as sons.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The full bench of the Supreme Court has given a detailed explanation about the rights of the stepmother and the son born from the other side.
The bench of judges Nahkul Subedi, Tekprasad Dhungana and Balkrishna Dhakal has explained that the property earned by father, mother and stepmother is equal to that of a son.
The full text of the judgment passed on 21 Chait 2081 has been made public by the Supreme Court only recently, and it has been explained that it is not possible to differentiate between stepson and son.
"As long as the principle that the property acquired by the parents from any source is inherited by the children is applicable to the case of the same branch, we could not agree with the appeal that this provision cannot be attracted in the case of stepmother and son," the full text of the judgment says, "The immediately existing civil law and the current Civil Code, 2074, when defining 'mother' or 'son', stepmother or It does not seem to exclude the stepson. Civil Act, 1 no., 3 no. or 10 no. It does not seem that the legal system treats 'mother' and 'stepmother' or 'son' and 'stepson' differently.'
It is stated in the decision that the law provides that those who have more than one wife or children from more than one wife should not be boxed only to the children of their favorite wives, even in the case of having children from more than one branch, they should share equally with the children of the same branch.
It is mentioned in the interpretation of the Supreme Court that the law has taken mother or children and stepmother or stepchildren in the same sense for the purpose of shareholding .
It is mentioned in the full text of the judgment that if there is more than one wife, only the property of their respective branches will be divided between them and the property of their respective branches will be bound.
It is mentioned in the interpretation of the Supreme Court that the word 'mother' used in the law on shareholding includes the stepmother and the word 'son' includes the stepson, except in cases where the law clearly separates it.
'Property acquired by parents from any source is like inheritance for children. The full text says, "The property acquired by the stepmother through any means of dowry is inherited by her children," the full text says, "it cannot be explained that it will not be for the children born from the stepmother ." The law stipulates that equal shares should be shared among all the shareholders during the division. It is mentioned in the ruling in the Civil Act, No. 10 of the Anshbandako Mahal, that the husband or the parents must feed and bring the children of the wife in accordance with respect and arrange proper education as per the need, or if they do not do so, the parents or the previous generation must pay a share to the next generation.
The property under Ansh Dhan will be inherited only by the son on his left side. Explaining that it cannot be done in the case of a stepson is fair and does not seem to be compatible with the meaning and spirit of the mentioned legal system," the full text of the judgment says, "Sagol's debt will be bound by all the shareholders The purpose of the law is that such loans are used for the benefit of all the family members. What was the
controversy?
Bhagwati Parajuli, Navraj Parajuli, Prahlad Parajuli and Prakash Parajuli had a dispute between 4 members.
Navraj Parajuli In 2054, Rahul Parajuli was born after love marriage. As she got married without the permission of her family, she stayed in the Dera for some time after the marriage and went home. But she stayed apart as there was no good relationship in the family. Navraj Parajuli got married to Shashi Parajuli for the second time after his first wife separated. After that, Bhagwati claimed a share and filed a complaint in the District Court Kathmandu. District Court It was pronounced that the claim was not sufficient. Bhagwati Parajuli approached the High Court against that. Shashi Parajuli also claimed in the Patan High Court that the property she received as dowry was also a share. After the property dispute of both parties, the High Court upheld the decision of the district. This dispute reached the Supreme Court.
A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Shashi and Bhagwati Parajuli's sons would have equal rights. The main part of the
judgment is that the step-mother will be entitled to the dowry box property received from the
