The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has delivered a significant judgment declaring that a Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband, independent of the specific provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Overruling the 2007 Division Bench decision in Vijayan v. Sobhana, the Court held that while this right remains “dormant” during normal marital life, it transforms into an enforceable right binding on the property once legal proceedings are initiated.
Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, P.V. Kunhikrishnan, and G. Girish delivered the ruling in response to a reference made by a Division Bench regarding conflicting views on the applicability of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to maintenance claims by Hindu wives.
Background of the Dispute
The legal question arose from an appeal (Mat. Appeal No. 1093 of 2014) concerning a property dispute. A claim petitioner had purchased 5 cents of land on July 16, 2007, from a husband who had an estranged relationship with his wife. Subsequently, the wife filed an original petition for maintenance and attached the property on November 14, 2007. She eventually obtained a decree in her favour on March 12, 2009.
When the Family Court refused to allow the purchaser’s claim petition—relying on the precedent Ramankutty Purushothaman v. Amminikutty—the purchaser appealed to the Division Bench. The purchaser contended that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’), a wife had no specific right to receive maintenance from the profits of her husband’s immovable property. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment in Vijayan v. Sobhana (2007), which held that Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act (‘T.P. Act’) had no applicability in such cases.
Noting a conflict between Vijayan and other decisions like Sathiyamma v. Gayathri (2013) and Hadiya (Minor) v. Shameera (2025), the Division Bench referred the matter to the Full Bench.
Arguments and Legal Submissions
The core argument for the claim petitioner was that the 1956 Act did not explicitly confer a right upon a wife to claim maintenance from property profits, thereby making Section 39 of the T.P. Act inapplicable.
Senior Advocate Mr. T. Krishnanunni, appointed as Amicus Curiae, assisted the Court by tracing the history of the legal principle. He submitted that ancient Hindu texts and numerous judicial precedents across various High Courts established that a husband’s liability is not just personal but extends to his property. He argued that the personal obligation does not negate the wife’s right to be maintained from her husband’s assets.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Full Bench, led by Justice G. Girish, examined Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 4, 18, 21, 27, and 28 of the Act, 1956.
The Court observed that Section 39 of the T.P. Act provides protection to a third person’s right to receive maintenance from the profits of immovable property against a transferee who has notice of the right or where the transfer is gratuitous.
Addressing the silence of the 1956 Act regarding a wife’s claim against a living husband’s property (as opposed to a widow’s claim against a deceased husband’s estate), the Court termed it an “omission.” The Court observed:
“It would be nothing short of travesty of justice if a hapless Hindu woman who had been abandoned by her husband was to remain helpless without having the option to proceed against the properties of her husband, and to remain in penury when she is denied maintenance by him.”
The Concept of Dormant and Inchoate Rights
The Court introduced a structured interpretation of when the maintenance right affects property transfers:
- Dormant Stage: The right to maintenance originates at marriage but remains “dormant” as long as the husband maintains the wife. During this stage, a purchaser is not presumed to have knowledge of this right.
- Inchoate Right: The right transforms into an “inchoate right” when the wife initiates legal procedures (including sending a registered legal notice) or upon the husband’s death.
- Crystallized Charge: The right becomes a charge on the property when a competent court passes a decree.
The Bench clarified that forcing a presumption of knowledge on every purchaser regarding a seller’s marital status would make property transactions “highly risky.” However, once legal steps are initiated, the purchaser is deemed to have notice.
Overruling Vijayan v. Sobhana
The Full Bench explicitly disagreed with the reasoning in Vijayan v. Sobhana, which had held that Section 28 of the 1956 Act and Section 39 of the T.P. Act did not apply to a wife’s claim against a living husband. The Court stated:
“The entitlement of a Hindu wife under Section 18 of the Act, 1956 to have maintenance from her husband is not only confined to his person but it extends to the estate of the husband as well. Therefore, the view expressed to the contrary in Vijayan v. Sobhana… cannot be said to be good law.”
The Decision
The Full Bench answered the reference with the following conclusions:
- Entitlement: A Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors (outside) the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
- Dormant Stage: This right is presumed to be in a “dormant stage” until she initiates legal steps or is widowed.
- Purchaser’s Liability: During the dormant stage, a purchaser is not presumed to have knowledge of the right for the purposes of Section 39 of the T.P. Act, unless there is evidence of actual knowledge of denial of maintenance or the transfer was gratuitous.
- Effect of Legal Action: If a transfer occurs during the period when legal action (including a registered legal notice) has been initiated, “the purchaser shall be deemed to be having the knowledge of such right.”
- Precedent Overruled: The law laid down in Vijayan v. Sobhana [ILR 2007(1) Kerala 822] is not correct law insofar as it held that a wife and children have no right to claim maintenance from the profits of immovable property held by the husband.
The Registry was directed to transmit the order to the Division Bench for further procedures in the appeal.
