//
you're reading...
legal issues

Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 – ss. 3 and 18 – Maintenance – Right of wife to reside in matrimonial home – Wife and children residing in the suit property – Decree for possession of suit property in favour of husband – Challenge to, by wife on the ground that she already obtained charged decree for maintenance over suit property – Dismissed by High Court holding that wife could not claim right of residence in matrimonial home so as to resist decree for possession – On appeal, held: Supreme Court in Mangat Mal’s and B.P. Achala Anand’s cases examined the question as to whether maintenance encompasses provision for residence – Matter remitted to High Court to consider the issues in the light of the ratio of aforesaid cases – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 39. The relationship between the respondent no. 1-husband and the appellant- wife were estranged. Respondent no. 1 filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of Schedule property where appellant and respondent no. 2 and 3-children were residing. Trial court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent no. 1. Appellant filed second appeal on the ground that she had right to reside in the matrimonial home situated in the Scheduled property and that she had already obtained charged decree for maintenance over the Schedule property. High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the wife could not claim a right of residence in the matrimonial home so as to resist a decree for possession. Hence the present appeal. =Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Maintenance necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. Provision for residence may be made either by giving a lump sum in money, or property in lieu thereof. It may also be made by providing, for the course of the lady`s life, a residence and money for other necessary expenditure. Where provision is made in this manner, by giving a life interest in property for the purpose of residence, that provision is made in lieu of a pre-existing right to maintenance and the Hindu lady acquires far more than the vestige of title which is deemed sufficient to attract s. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [Para 9] [80-C-D-E] 1.2. The Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, was enacted to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus, and it defines maintenance in Section 3 (d) to include “(1) In all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment.” [Para 11] [81-G] 1.3. The High Court did not consider the aspect whether maintenance encompasses a provision for residence as considered in Mangat Mal’s and B.P. Achala Anand’s cases. It will be appropriate for the High Court to consider the issues by re-hearing the appeal in the light of what has been stated in Mangat Mal’s and B.P. Achala Anand’s cases. [Para 13] [82-F] Mangat Mal (Dead) and Anr. vs. Punni Devi (Dead) and Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 88 and B.P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi Reddy and Anr. 2005 (2) SCALE 105, referred to. Mulla’s Hindu Law (Sixteenth Edition), referred to. Case Law Reference: 1995 (6) SCC 88 Referred to. Para 6 2005 (2) SCALE 105 Referred to. Para 12 G. Prakash, for the Appellant. K. Rajeev, for the Respondents. =, , , 2008(14 )SCALE470 , 2008(12 )JT157

REPORTABLE
The supreme court of india. Taken about 170 m ...

Image via Wikipedia



 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3670 of 2005)

Komalam Amma .....Appellant

 Vs.

Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and Ors. .....Respondents

 JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single

Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the second appeal filed in terms

of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `the Code').

 1
The second appeal was filed by the appellant, who was defendant No.1 in

O.S. No.426 of 1986 on the file of learned first Additional Munsiff's Court,

Thiruananthapuram. She and the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the

defendants and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, who is the husband of the

appellant and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Suit was one for

declaration of title in respect of Plaint-A Schedule Property where the

defendants were residing and for recovery of possession with mesne profits.

3. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate court concurrently

decreed the suit finding title over the plaint-A Schedule property with the

plaintiff-husband. They held that Plaint-A Schedule property was purchased

by him under Exh.A-1 (sale deed) utilising his own funds and the funds for

the acquisition of the property were not provided by the present appellant-

wife. The concurrent decrees passed by the courts below were assailed

before the High Court.

4. Stand of the appellant and the present respondent nos.2 and 3

was that being the wife of the plaintiff, the present appellant is entitled to

 2
reside in the matrimonial home situated in the plaint schedule property. It

was also pointed out that she had already obtained a charged decree for

maintenance over the schedule property as per the decree in OS No.139 of

1977. It was, therefore, her stand that the decree passed in the present case

will result in conflicting decrees defeating the statutory charge under Section

39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short `the TP Act').

5. The High Court was of the view that even if the appellant had

obtained a decree for maintenance against the husband, the decree passed in

the case for recovery of possession does not in any way, defeat the right of

the wife to enforce the charge. Section 39 of the T.P. Act will have operation

only if the charged property is transferred in which case, the transferee who

is not a bona-fide transferee for value without notice will be liable for the

charge. The High Court further held that in view of the factual setting in the

case when the relationship between the husband and the wife is estranged,

the wife cannot still claim a right of residence in the matrimonial home so as

to resist a decree for possession. Therefore, the second appeal was

dismissed.

 3
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view

expressed by the High Court runs counter to the decision of this Court in

Mangat Mal (Dead) and Anr. Vs. Punni Devi (Dead) and Ors. (1995 (6)

SCC 88).

 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand,

 supported the judgment of the High Court.

8. In Mangat Mal's case (supra), this Court was considering the

question whether maintenance encompasses a provision for residence. The

case was considered in the light of Section 14(1) of The Hindu Succession

Act, 1956 (in short `the Act').

 9. Maintenance, as we see it, necessarily must encompass a

provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the

manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of

maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the

 4
like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. Provision

for residence may be made either by giving a lump sum in money, or property

in lieu thereof. It may also be made by providing, for the course of the lady`s

life, a residence and money for other necessary expenditure. Where provision

is made in this manner, by giving a life interest in property for the purposes

of residence, that provision is made in lieu of a pre-existing right to

maintenance and the Hindu lady acquires far more than the vestige of title

which is deemed sufficient to attract Section 14 (1).

10. Mulla's Hindu Law (Sixteenth Edition) sets out the position in

law prior to the Act. The Manager of a joint Mitakshara family is under a

legal obligation to maintain all male members of the family, their wives and

their children. On the death of any one of the male members he is bound to

maintain his widow and his children. The obligation to maintain these

persons arises from the fact that the Manager is in possession of the family

property (para 543). An heir is legally bound to provide, out of the estate

which descends to him, maintenance for those persons whom the late

proprietor was legally or morally bound to maintain (para 544). A wife is

 5
entitled to be maintained by her husband, whether he possesses property or

not. When a man with his eyes open marries a girl accustomed to a certain

style of living, he undertakes the obligation of maintaining her in that style

(para 554). A widow who does not succeed to the estate of her husband as

his heir is entitled to maintenance out of his separate property as well as out

of property in which he was a co-parcener at the time of his death (para

559). A Hindu widow is, in the absence of special circumstances,

entitled to reside in the family dwelling house in which she lived with her

husband (para 562). The maintenance to be allowed to a widow should be

such an amount as will enable her to live consistently with her position as

a widow, with the same degree of comfort and reasonable luxury as she

had in her husband's house, unless there are circumstances which affect,

one way or the other, her mode of living there. In determining the amount

of maintenance the Court should have regard, inter alia, to the provision and

status of the deceased husband and of the widow and the reasonable wants

of the widow, including not only the ordinary expenses of living, but what

she might reasonably expend for religious and other duties incidental to her

station in life (para 566). Where an undivided family consists of two or

 6
more males, related as father and son or otherwise, and one of them dies

leaving a widow, she is entitled to reside in the family dwelling house in

which she lived with her husband. If the house is sold by the surviving co-

parceners without necessity, the sale does not affect her right, and the

purchaser cannot evict her until another suitable residence is found for her

(para 573). A widow who is entitled to maintenance may sue, inter alia, for

a charge on a specific portion of her husband`s estate for her maintenance

and residence (para 579).

11. The Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1959, was enacted to

amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among

Hindus, and it defines maintenance in Section 3 (d) to include "(1) In all

cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical

attendance and treatment."

12. In B.P. Achala Anand Vs. S. Appi Reddy and Anr. (2005 (2)

SCALE 105) it was observed as follows:

 7
 "Having said so generally, we may now deal with the right of a
 wife to reside in the matrimonial home under personal laws. In
 the factual context of the present case, we are confining
 ourselves to dealing with the personal law as applicable to
 Hindus as the parties are so. A Hindu wife is entitled to be
 maintained by her husband. She is entitled to remain under his
 roof and protection. She is also entitled to separate residence if
 by reason of the husband's conduct or by his refusal to maintain
 her in his own place of residence or for other just cause she is
 compelled to live apart from him. Right to residence is a part
 and parcel of wife's right to maintenance. The right to
 maintenance cannot be defeated by the husband executing a
 will to defeat such a right. (See: MULLA, Principles of Hindu
 Law, Vol. I, 18th Ed. 2001, paras 554 and 555) The right has
 come to be statutorily recognized with the enactment of the
 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 18 of the
 Act provides for maintenance of wife. Maintenance has been so
 defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Hindu Adoption and
 Maintenance Act, 1956 as to include therein provision for
 residence amongst other things. For the purpose of maintenance
 the term 'wife' includes a divorced wife."

13. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court. It will

be appropriate for the High Court to consider the issues by re-hearing the

appeal in the light of what has been stated in Mangat Mal's and B.P. Achala

Anand's cases (supra).

14. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

merits by remitting the matter to the High Court.

 8
15. The appeal is disposed off accordingly without any order as to

costs.

 ..........................................J.
 (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

 ..........................................J.
 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi:
November 14, 2008 9

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,436 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: