Court decline maid's plea for right over employer's assets
- Modi government softens stand on controversial Land Acquisition Bill, says ready for talks
- Gangster Abu Salem sentenced to life imprisonment in Pradeep Jain murder case
- Went to casino for dinner with family, apologise for my choice of venue: Moin Khan
- Ready to discuss issue of alleged stealing of Petroleum ministry documents: Government
- Salman Khan black buck poaching case: Jodhpur court defers verdict
A maid servant, who claimed to be the mistress of her employer after his death, has been denied right over the deceased's assets by a Delhi court.
"In the present petition, the counsel appearing on her (woman) behalf has also failed to show any ownership of the property. It is evident that all the articles belonged to the deceased and were lying in his house and recovered from her room.
"Under such circumstances, merely because she has alleged to be the mistress of the deceased, she cannot claim ownership of his tangible assets lying in his house nor claim that the same be released to her," District and Sessions Judge Ina Malhotra said.
The court's order came on the woman's revision petition against the magisterial court January 2013 decision which had rejected her plea for release of assets, which was seized by the man's daughter.
The woman had contended before the court that though she was employed as the man's servant, her status was that of his wife.
She had further stated that his daughter was married and living separately, so the man had willed his entire assets to her (maid-servant).
The maid's lawyer had contended that after her employer's death in April 2007, his daughter came to the house and had threatened the lady and asked her to vacate the flat.
The counsel further said that in May 2007 a complaint was made against the woman for stealing various things.
The maid servant also said that the trial court had discharged her of the offences. However, the seized articles which belonged to the deceased were not returned to her.
"The petitioner (woman) could not show that the seized articles belonged to her. It was observed that merely because the accused (woman) was discharged for lack of evidence or improper investigation did not entitle her for return of the aforesaid articles," the court noted.