Anupama abusing saas

Nowadays we hear on new that daughter in law abuses mother in law in various ways

Anupama is doing same with Malati Devi

Only becauseMD had put anuj in orhange society ignoring red flags of abuse

First she does not call her maa or saasu ma or Baa like elder mothers or mom in laws called at home

Secondly like typical bahu shes jealous that saas spends time with grand daughter CA

She is sacred CA may become close to saas ma than her ma anupama

In reality any parent feel happy if kid is close to grandparents not this anupama

She only wants MD tro be maid of CA not her grandmom and get close to her

Third shes jealous that mom in law using her kitchen

Anupama keeps forgetting anuj kapadiya himself is adopted so in inheritance its Malvika whom that house and business belongs to first of all than only anuj or anupama

As anuj mother MD has all rights to use kitchen of kapadiyas

Anuj also abusing his aged mother by allowing Shahs and Leela to verbally abuse her in front of his eyes

First the fact that anuj and anupama have allowed ex saas of anupama to live with real saas itself is a big abuse as per society and law. IF MD files harassment by bahu and son and bahu family they will go to jail. I know cases in india only where bahu and her relatives who stay in hubby house abuse parents of hubby and court has said that daughter in law relatives cannot abuse aged parents or even stay there in son in law home if they treat his parents badly or they object

MD has all rights to live in her sons home without her bahu ex saas ordering her abusing her

As per indian laws relatives/son/bahu cannot kick out aged from their home its illegal and action can be taken by police

As per same indian laws a mother/mother in law cannot be abused or allowed to be abused by ouitsiders by kids/bahus/grandkids its all offence as per law and leela is outider as per indian law

All this anuj and anupama are doing with MD

Let me not even start with how many laws anuj and anupama have broken by ignoring and allowing CA abuse at hands of Shahs

As per law indian law a daughter has equal rights on father property. So anuj writing 100% business and property to anupama is fully wrong as 50% belongs to Malvika as company started by her dad not anuj kapadiya or anupama and house built by anuj dad too

Same way ancestral property cannot go to one child or person name like kapadiya nivas became anupama mansion it goes to anuj and Malvika name equally.

I can list many other laws that are broken by anupam and nauj thats for another day

If anuj and anupama say MD abondoned anuj in orhangae and has no rights of mother or mother in law on anuj home or anupama than by same way anuj is adopted he too has no real rights on kapadiya empire and home exclusively. He should give 50% to Malvika too and not 100% to his wife anupama

Only anupama is not a girl as being tried to show Malvika too is a girl that too al alone no hubby or kids and has all rights indeed more rights on kapadiya business and home than anupam aor anuj ever has

Please read supreme court directive that daughter specially unmarried/single/divorced daughter has equal rights on business property as son and no one can deny her that

This show is above and beyond any logic or law...

What if malvika sign no objection certificate that she has transfer her own share to anuj she don't want any share

If father died with out making will then some property go to mother and other property equally divided between children like 1 6th property as per Indian law .

Suppose there are 4 siblings a,b ,c, d and whose father and mother both died without making will

Then property will equally divided between siblings

But if 3 siblings like b c ,d all three wrte affidavit no objection certificate that we don't want any share property and we are all tranfering our property to eldest siblings that too without objection and 3 sibling sign gift deed then eldest siblings will become sole owner

If it is ancestral property then even anuj father was also not legal owner of property nor this property is self acquired property of anuj father Because it is anuj ke Dada ya might be par Dada ki property

Because ancestral property ki Matlab hi hai no will is made

Anuj ke father bus aa kar bus ancestral Gha Matlab apne father ya grand father ke ghar mein rehna aa gaye hinge bus unhe Ghar ko sell karne ki permission nahi hai kyonki woh legal owner nahi they

To Pata nahi anuj ke father kahan se us Ghar ke legal owner ban gaye jub ki ise ancestral property kaha jaata hai .kyonki ancestral property Matlab hi uski koi will nahi banayi gayi hai

Asliyat mein is ancestral property ka koi legal owner nahi hai bus sub aakar aise hi reh reh rahe hai aapi sehmat property ka property batwara kar Rahe Hai bus yes Ghar ko bechne kisi ko permission nahi hai kyonki koi bhi legal owner nahi hai

https://twitter.com/SudhasumanSs/status/1721019512525590581?t=KqqyA-3-NOROaFW-LhKjBA&s=19

Kapadia Mansion toh pushtaini Haveli thi jise renovate kiya gaya tha, right?

Before people start questioning this: Reference: Barkha-Ankush introduction episode.

Toh matlab use Anupama ke naam nahin kiya ja sakta and Anuj aur Anupama ko koi Haq nahin hain ki Barkha, Ankush ko ghar se nikal sake.

Hmmmm🤔 interesting.

But the other issues still stand ground:

1. Child negligence, verbal abuse.

2. Illtreatment if elders (senior citizens).

3. Not to forget existing undertaking by Vanraj-Pakhi against complaint filed by Pakhi for false suicide threat.

Originally posted by: surabhi01

What if malvika sign no objection certificate that she has transfer her own share to anuj she don't want any share

If father died with out making will then some property go to mother and other property equally divided between children like 1 6th property as per Indian law .

Suppose there are 4 siblings a,b ,c, d and whose father and mother both died without making will

Then property will equally divided between siblings

But if 3 siblings like b c ,d all three wrte affidavit no objection certificate that we don't want any share property and we are all tranfering our property to eldest siblings that too without objection and 3 sibling sign gift deed then eldest siblings will become sole owner

If kids give affidavit to one sibling also they can withdraw later as per law

I know a case where siblings gave property and shop to one brother

He started abusing siblings so they withdrew all affidavit and said they want ancestrol property back and business shop back and got it back

Till siblings or their kids are alive they can withdraw rights given to another sibling anytime

Same way one sibling had died so his son put affidavit instead of father

So Malvika still has all rights on kapadiya business and house even after giving affaidavit

Forget Malvika if she has kids in future they can put case on anuj kapadiya saying we want our grandpa property and business rights, our mom was coaxed or threatened to give 100% to anu or she was in depression. This also i know had happened in india only that kids put case on parents brothers to get parent share of property after their death and got their share of business as per law and court

This much i know that an affidavit can be withrawn any time or challenged by kids or grand kids anytime

Read priyamvada birla case affidavit given to house lawyer by old lady no business and property given to her niece nephew so they put case and won later after her death

First right on father or mother property is son and daughter than grand kids only not anyone else no matter what affidavit anyone gives can be challenged in court of law even after malvika death actually

Originally posted by: surabhi01

If it is ancestral property then even anuj father was also not legal owner of property nor this property is self acquired property of anuj father Because it is anuj ke Dada ya might be par Dada ki property

Because ancestral property ki Matlab hi hai no will is made

Anuj ke father bus aa kar bus ancestral Gha Matlab apne father ya grand father ke ghar mein rehna aa gaye hinge bus unhe Ghar ko sell karne ki permission nahi hai kyonki woh legal owner nahi they

To Pata nahi anuj ke father kahan se us Ghar ke legal owner ban gaye jub ki ise ancestral property kaha jaata hai .kyonki ancestral property Matlab hi uski koi will nahi banayi gayi hai

Asliyat mein is ancestral property ka koi legal owner nahi hai bus sub aakar aise hi reh reh rahe hai aapi sehmat property ka property batwara kar Rahe Hai bus yes Ghar ko bechne kisi ko permission nahi hai kyonki koi bhi legal owner nahi hai

No anuj father built that bungalow when anuj was small for his kids

It is not anuj grandpa property its anuj father who built

Business too set up by anuj father only not grandfather

Anuj dad went to USA and set up this business when anuj was 18/19 year old(after anupama marry anuj go to study degree in USA he only told)

Anuj dad had another business in india too i think thats only kapadiya industry that anuj runs now that was set up by anuj dad before he was adopted

So Malvika can any time claim 50% property

But anuj father(adopted) died suddenly without will when Mlavika was only 8-9 years old kid and anuj 23 years old in accident

This is what anuj told one day that after that i took care of dad company with GK kaka help

The maker's are actually TARGETING us under the garb of MD. First they made MD the spokesperson of sane viewers and now through Maidupama are trying to VILLANIZE her for asking to draw healthy boundaries with Shahs. This is the most shameless ph I ever came across. I mean instead of paying heed to the genuine feedback and trying to rectify it,they are taunting their only handful of viewers left. Trp is already 1.9 still akad nahi gayi. Ye 1 paise ka ego inke show ko band karwa dega.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Originally posted by: Ashita5500

The maker's are actually TARGETING us under the garb of MD. First they made MD the spokesperson of sane viewers and now through Maidupama are trying to VILLANIZE her for asking to draw healthy boundaries with Shahs.

Actually you are right. Some of the dialogues by Malati Devi were as though taken from actual discussions here, miscontrued in context and presented.

That's distasteful.