Hindu Woman Without Own Income Can Enjoy Property Given By Deceased Husband, But Can't Have Absolute Rights Over It: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that a Hindu woman without having her own income has complete rights to enjoy, throughout her lifetime, the property received by her from the deceased husband but cannot have “absolute rights” over it.

“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their own income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands—who may predecease them—is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

The court observed that such security is essential to ensure that the woman is not dependent on her children, after the demise of the husband.

“Under such circumstances, the wife has complete rights to enjoy the property during her lifetime. She can also enjoy the income from the said property throughout her life,” the court said.

It however said that it cannot be held that the entire property should be construed as maintenance giving the wife absolute rights over the property, after the husband's death.

Justice Singh made the observations while dealing with a case concerning a partition dispute between various siblings after the death of their father in 1989. He executed a will in favour of his wife wherein it was stated that he will devolve his property to her as life estate.

He also said that the wife shall have every right to recover the rent of the said property and use the same. It was also stated that in case of her death, the property shall devolve between the children, except four sons. She died in 2012.

A partition suit was filed by four siblings (three sons and a daughter) against the other three siblings and a granddaughter through the pre-deceased son.

Before the trial court, the defendant siblings asserted that the suit was itself not maintainable. It was submitted that by virtue of the Will, the mother was granted only a lifetime estate in the property, and thus, her rights were limited. It was argued that after the mother's death, the property should devolve as mentioned in the Will.

The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiff siblings and held that by virtue of the Will, the wife became the absolute owner of property who had died intestate. Hence, the trial court held that the property shall devolve as per successorship.

The said order was challenged by the defendant siblings before the High Court.

Allowing the plea, Justice Singh set aside the impugned order, observing that the wife did not execute any Will during her lifetime, and died intestate.

The court observed that no challenge to the Will was raised, neither by her nor by the children and that she obviously had no contrary intention to what her husband expressed in his Will.

It added that by not drafting a will of her own, the wife did not express any intention that differed from her husband's will, thereby reinforcing the assumption that she agreed to the conditions he established before he breathed his last.

“The Will categorically states that the wife has no right to sell, alienate, or transfer the subject property. Given this position, to assert that upon the death of her husband she became the absolute owner of the subject property and could have sold or alienated the property would contradict the clear intent expressed in the Will as also the intention of the deceased mother clearly expressed through her conduct that she did not execute a Will or sell the property during her lifetime,” the court said.

Justice Singh said that the wife's rights in the property clearly devolved upon her only under a Will. The court said that she did not 'possess' any rights in the property prior to her husband's death and acquired rights solely under the Will.

“She had the right to enjoy the income generated from the subject property during her lifetime, and this cannot be considered an absolute interest,” the court said. 

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Kumar Solanki, Adv

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Raghav Anthwal & Mr. Charu Sharma, Advs. for R-1 to 4. Mr. Jatin Mongia & Mr. Anatesh Banon, Advocates for R-5

Title: MANMOHAN SINGH & ANR v. SHITAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 490

Click here to read order