Is A Hindu Wife Entitled To Receive Maintenance From Immovable Property Of Husband? Kerala High Court Refers To Full Bench
The Kerala High Court has referred for consideration of the Full Bench the question of entitlement of a Hindu wife to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband.The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar framed the following questions for consideration by the Full Bench:"(a) Is a Hindu wife entitled to receive maintenance from the...
The Kerala High Court has referred for consideration of the Full Bench the question of entitlement of a Hindu wife to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband.
The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar 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?"
A matrimonial appeal was preferred by the claim petitioner before the Family Court, stating that he is the bona fide purchaser of the property which was in the ownership of the second respondent (husband). This property was thereafter attached in a proceeding initiated by the first respondent (wife) against her husband, for maintenance.
The Family Court dismissed the claim petition on reaching a finding that a wife is entitled to enforce her right of maintenance against the property as she held a charge upon it. The Family Court relied on Ramankutty Purushothaman v. Amminikutty (1997) to arrive at its decision. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed.
According to the claim petitioner, the wife had no right to receive maintenance from the profits of the immovable property as there is no provision under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which confers such a right. The counsel for the claim petitioner placed reliance on Vijayan v. Sobhana (2007).
The Amicus Curiae, T. Krishnanunni (Senior counsel) placed before the Division Bench a series of decisions pronounced by various High Courts on the topic. After perusing these decisions, the division bench observed:
"As we have noticed that there are conflicting views expressed by different Division Benches of this Court on the issue, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be referred to a full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement."
The division bench also outlined the various legal aspects involved in the matter, including Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, Sections 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Thus, it referred the aforesaid two questions before the Full Bench.
Case No: Mat.Appeal No.1093 of 2014
Case Title: Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors.
Counsel for the appellant: S.Balachandran (Kulasekharam), V.R. Gopu
Counsel for the respondents: K. Satheesh Kumar, T.A. Unnikrishnan for R1; G. Krishnakumari for R2
Amicus Curiae: T. Krishnanunni (Senior counsel)