Justice Sathish Ninan, Justice P. Krishna Kumar, Kerala High Court
Is Hindu Wife Entitled To Receive Maintenance From Immovable Property Of Her Husband? – Kerala High Court Refers Question To Full Bench
|The Kerala High Court noted that under ancient Hindu law and the law governing joint Hindu families, a wife in a joint family was recognised to have the status of a co-owner for the limited purpose of claiming maintenance over the properties of the husband.
The Kerala High Court has referred the question on the entitlement of Hindu wife to receive maintenance from immovable property of her husband, to a Full Bench.
An Appeal was filed by the Claim Petitioner in an Application under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) before the Family Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, “… even after the enactment of a comprehensive legislation governing the right to receive maintenance from immovable property and prescribing the circumstances in which such a right would bind the immovable property, to what extent the principles derived from ancient texts can be accorded the force of law so as to create such a right over immovable property, remains to be determined. The law, therefore, needs to be laid down in this regard with certainty by a Full Bench.”
The Bench noted that under ancient Hindu law and the law governing joint Hindu families, a wife in a joint family was recognised to have the status of a co-owner for the limited purpose of claiming maintenance over the properties of the husband and such rights and obligations were derived from the classical Hindu law texts and commentaries.
Advocate S. Balachandran Kulasekharam appeared for the Appellant while Advocate K. Satheesh Kumar appeared for the Respondents. Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni was appointed as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
Brief Facts
The Appellant’s contention was that he was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of a property that was subsequently attached in a proceeding initiated by the Respondent, claiming maintenance from her husband. The property in question was originally owned by the husband, who sold it to the Appellant prior to the order of attachment. The attachment was effected in 2007 and the Original Petition was decreed in favour of the wife in 2009. The Sale Deed was executed by the husband in favour of the Appellant in 2007.
The Family Court dismissed the Claim Petition, holding that the wife was entitled to enforce her right of maintenance against the property as she had a charge upon it. The Court relied on the decision of the High Court in Ramankutty Purushothaman v. Amminikutty (1997). The Appellant contended that the wife had no right to receive maintenance from the profits of the immovable property as none of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) confer any such right upon her. It was further contended that, since the sale was effected at a time when even the Petition claiming maintenance had not yet been filed, the Order for maintenance could not be enforced against the property.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above regard, said, “… can Section 18 be understood as conferring upon the wife a right to receive maintenance from the profits of the immovable property of the husband, although it can be said that it imposes a duty upon the husband to maintain her even if he has no resources. The provision does not expressly confer any proprietary right upon the wife in such resources; it merely states that a Hindu wife “shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband.”
The Court reiterated that if a Hindu wife has a right to receive maintenance from her husband’s property, such a right must emanate from certain other sources.
“In those cases, except in Ramaswamy Goundar and Ors. v. Baghyammal and Ors. (supra), the High Courts did not have any occasion to consider the impact of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1956, on the question of whether a wife has a right to claim maintenance from the immovable property owned by the husband. In V.Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy [(1977) 3 SCC 99] also, the Hon’ble Apex Court incidentally referred to the above view, but there also the issue before the court was in respect of a situation prior to 1956 and the gamut of discussion was on Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956”, it further observed.
The Court, therefore, framed the following questions for consideration by the Full Bench –
(a) Is a Hindu wife entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956?
(b) Is there not an apparent conflict between the views expressed in Vijayan v. Sobhana and Others [LIR 2007 (1) Kerala 822], or Sathiyamma v. Gayathri and Others [2013 (3) KHC 322], Nysha v. P.Suresh Babu (MANU/KE/2266/2019) and Hadiya (Minor) v. Shameera M.M. [2025 (3) KHC 131], and what is the correct law?
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registry to lay the records before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
Cause Title- Sulochana v. Anitha & Ors. (Case Number: MAT.APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2014)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates S. Balachandran Kulasekharam and V.R. Gopu.
Respondents: Advocate K. Satheesh Kumar, T.A. Unnikrishnan, and G. Krishnakumari.