LexJUPUDYPARDHASARATHY versus PENTAPATI RAMA KRISHNA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 14 S.C.R. 3/4 JUPUDYPARDHASARATHY v. PENTAPATI RAMAKRISHNAAND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2007) NOVEMBER 06, 2015 [M. Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Hindu Succession Act, 1956-s.14(1)-Right of Hindu female - If in a Will, suit property is given to wife by her C husband to enjoy and hold the same by way of maintenance during her life time then by virtue of s.14(1) her limited right becomes absolute right to the suit property. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1. It is well settled that under the Hindu Law, the husband has got a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he is possessed of properties then his wife is entitled to a right to be maintained out of such properties. It is equally well settled that the claim of E Hindu widow to be maintained is not a mere formality which is to be exercised as a matter of concession, grace or gratis but is a valuable, spiritual and moral right. The right of a widow to be maintained, although does not create a charge on the property of her F husband but certainly the widow can enforce her right by moving the Court and for passing a decree for maintenance by creating a charge. The Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate, Maintenance and Residence Act, 1946 was enacted giving statutory G recognition of such right and, therefore, there can be no doubt that the right to maintenance is a pre-existing right. [Paras 15, 16] [388-D-G] H 2. In the instant case, the Will was executed in 1920 in which 'SR' has mentioned that his first wife died, the 374 JUPUDYPARDHASARATHYv. PENTAPATI RAMA 375 KRISHNA second wife got two sons and one daughter. Thereafter, A second wife also died. He, then, married to 'V' as a third wife, who is alive. The executant of the Will also mentioned the description of the properties owned by him. He, very specifically mentioned in the Will that his third wife 'V' shall enjoy for life one tiled house situated B in the compound wall. For that enjoyment, it was also mentioned in the Will that the widow 'V' shall also be entitled to fetch water from the well situated in the backyard of a different house. In other words, the executant of the Will made arrangements for his third C wife to maintain her enjoyment in the suit schedule property till her life. Neither the genuineness of the Will was disputed nor it was disputed that 'V' was enjoying the property by way of maintenance. Unless the factum of bequeathing the property in favour of the wife and D her continuous possession are disputed, the question of pleading and proof does not arise. Further, indisputably, 'SR', the original owner of the property, r.ealized the fact that his wife 'V' was issueless and she has a pre-existing right to be maintained out of his E · property. He further realized that physically he was weak and may not' survive for long period. He therefore, decided to give his properties to his family members. Admittedly, no one disputed the arrangements made in the Will and 'V' continued to enjoy the said property. F In view of the admitted position; by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act, her limited right became absolute right to the suit property. Though no specific word has been mentioned in Exhibit A-2 that in lieu of maintenance life interest has been created in favour of 'V', whatever G form a limited interest is created in her favour who was having a pre-existing right of maintenance, the same has become an absolute right by the operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. [Paras 21, 31 to 34][394-A-D; 401-B-C, D-E, F-G; 402-B-C] H 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R. A Nirmal Chand vs. Vidya Wanti (1969) 3 SCC 628; Thota Sesharathamma vs. Thota Manikyamma 1991 (3) SCR 717: (1991) 4 sec 312 - relied on. B c D E F G H G. Rama vs. TG Seshagiri Rao 2008 (10) SCR 152 : (2008) 12 SCC 392; Mst Karmi vs. Amru & Ors. AIR 1971 SC 745 - held inapplicable. Sadhu Singh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike 2006 (5) suppl. SCR 799 : (2006) 8 sec 75 - distinguished. V. Tulasamma and others vs. Sesha Reddy (dead) by Lrs; AIR 1977 SC 1944 : 1977 (3) SCR 261; R.B. S.S. Munnalal and Others vs. S.S. Rajkumar & Others AIR 1962 SC 1493: 1962 Suppl. SCR 418; Shakuntala Devi vs. Kam/a and Others (2005) 5 SCC 390; Santosh and Others vs. Saraswathibai and Another2007 (12) SCR 375 : (2008) 1 SCC 465; Subhan Rao and Others vs. Parvathi Bai and Others (2010) 10 SCC 235; Sri Ramakris
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.