No Law Prevents Wife Getting Maintenance Under One Provision Of Law To Seek Maintenance Under Another: MP High Court

The bench comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia made the said observation while upholding the ownership of property by a woman in lieu of maintenance pursuant to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Facts of the case were that the Appellant/Defendant and the Respondent/Plaintiff were married to each other. After some years of their marriage, Appellant husband turned the Respondent wife and their daughter out of his house and started living with another woman. Later, a social meeting was convened wherein it was decided that the Appellant would give the Respondent the possession of the suit property in lieu of maintenance. The document executed between the parties also mentioned that after the death of the Respondent, the property would be inherited by her successor.

Sometime after the agreement, the Appellant and his second wife trespassed the suit property and took possession of the same. Aggrieved, the Respondent wife instituted a civil suit against the Appellant husband seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.

The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the agreement between parties was not registered. It also observed that the possession of the suit property was not handed over to the Respondent/Plaintiff and that the suit was barred by time. The wife preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court against the dismissal of her suit and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the reversal of decision of the trial court, the Appellant preferred an appeal against the same before the High Court.

The Appellant submitted that the agreement between parties was not registered and hence it could not be considered even for collateral purposes. It was also argued that the suit was barred by time. The Appellant further pointed out that the Respondent wife had moved an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC wherein she made no mention of the suit property. Thus, it was asserted that decision of the lower appellate court was liable to be set aside.

Also Read: Wife Entitled To Maintenance Under Two Separate Enactments, Quantum May Be Adjusted Accordingly: Karnataka High Court

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court did not concur with the arguments put forth by the Appellant. It noted that it was not disputed that the agreement was indeed executed between the Appellant and the Respondent regarding the suit property. The Court observed that a bare perusal of the said agreement implies that the possession of the suit property was also given by the Appellant to the Respondent. Thus, it held that pursuant to the provisions under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Respondent was the rightful owner of the suit property-

Thus, it is clear that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Therefore, the crux of the matter is that the female should be in possession of land. From plain reading of agreement Ex.P/2, it is clear that it was specifically mentioned that the land in dispute is being given to the plaintiff by way of her maintenance. The necessary implication of this recital would be that the possession was also given. Otherwise there was no point in executing an agreement by way of maintenance and thereafter, not giving the land to the plaintiff…Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act would apply in its full force and by virtue of section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff had become the full owner thereof and not a limited owner.

On the point of the Respondent receiving monthly maintenance amount from the Appellant in addition to the possession of the suit property, the Court observed that there is no provision of law which bars a woman to seek compensation under two different statutes-

The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has held that if a wife is getting maintenance under one provision of law, then while ascertaining the quantum of maintenance under another provision, the Court shall take into the consideration the maintenance amount which the wife is getting in previously instituted proceeding. There is no law that if a wife is getting maintenance under one provision of law, then she cannot get the maintenance amount at all under another provision of law. Even otherwise that situation would not arise in the present case. The agreement Ex.P/2 was executed on 23.06.1981 whereas the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 29.04.1998. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff was getting the maintenance by virtue of pre-existing agreement.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court found the appeal sans merit and accordingly, the same was dismissed.

Case Title: Dwarka Prasad Patel v. Smt. Marri(S.A. 466/2007)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 27