KOMALAM AMMA versus KUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 14-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 16 S.C.R. 76 
A 
KOMALAM AMMA 
v. 
KUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6658 of 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 14, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
c 
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 
D - 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 main{enance encompasses provision for 
E 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-
F husband and the: appellant-wife were estranged. 
f 
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 
G 
decreed the suit in favour of respondent no. 1. Appellant 
filed second appea'1 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 
t 
decree for maintenance over the Schedule property. High 
Court dismissed the appeal holding that the wife could 
H 
76 
KOMALAM AMMA v. KUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI 
n 
AND ORS. 
not claim a right of residence in the matrimonial home so A 
as to resist a decree for possession. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Maintenance necessarily must encompass B 
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 C 
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 o 
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. E 
[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 F 
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 G 
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. 
Acha/a Anand's cases. [Para 13] [82-F] 
H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S. C.R. 
A 
Mangat Mal (Dead) and Anr. vs. Punni Devi (Dead) and 
B 
Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 88 .and B.P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi 
Reddy and Anr. 2005 (2) SCALE 105, referred to. 
Mu/la's Hindu Law (Sixteenth Edition), referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1995 (6) sec 88 • 
2005 (2) SCALE 105 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 6 
Para 12 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
D 
E 
6658 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2004 of 
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RS.A. No. 1192 of 
2004(A). 
G. Prakash, for the Appellant. 
K. Rajeev, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 
F Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code'). The second appeal was 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.