Our Bureau

In an interesting twist in the ongoing Baba Kalyani family feud, the Hiremath siblings have expressed their willingness for a mediation with their uncle Baba Kalyani as they were “deeply anguished by the mud-slinging”.

The counsel for the Hiremaths told the Pune civil court on Monday that Kalyani’s claims against the elders in the family were very disturbing, and harming the reputation of the family.

As soon as advocate Shailendra Aglawe, appearing for the siblings, tabled the option of mediation before joint civil judge (senior division) SS Shinde, Kalyani’s counsel Amit Agashe refuted possibility of a mediation.

Mediation

However, the court eventually accepted the request for mediation. The feud between the Hiremaths and the Kalyanis began after Sugandha’s brother, Baba Kalyani, refused to transfer Hikal shares in Hiremath’s name — something that was allegedly promised to the Hiremath couple, according to a 1994 note made by Kalyani’s father.

In response to the petition filed by the Hiremaths, Baba Kalyani denied the existence of any family HUF. He said the siblings had no right in any family wealth.

He claimed his grandfather Annappa Naryan Kalyani (ANK) was not a wealthy man, and earned a meagre ₹2 salary per month, adding that he merely gave ₹2 lakh at the time of his death to his son Neelkanth Annappa Kalyani (Baba and Sugandha’s father).

Siblings claim

The Hiremath siblings said ANK left behind a fortune for the family, a running business worth ₹20 lakh, besides land and a house which would have been adequate to support the next couple of generations, even if they preferred to sit idle.

The Hiremath siblings claimed they became coparceners in their own right in the Kalyani Family HUF upon the introduction of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the year 2005.

“The statements of Baba Kalyani are a classic example of the fact that even when the law has been amended to confer rights on women, it is the mindset of society which cannot accept such rights of the daughters and their children, and deprives them of their rightful share in the property,” the rejoinder said.

Related Topics