SULOCHANA Vs. ANITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following are the legal questions referred to us by the Division Bench as per the order dtd. 11/7/2025 in Mat.Appeal No.1093 of 2014:

(2.) The matter came up in appeal before of the Division Bench when the Family Court concerned refused to allow the claim petition of a person who purchased on 16/7/2007, 5 cents of land out of the 11 cents which belonged to a husband having an estranged relationship with his wife, which led to the attachment of that property on 14/11/2007 in an original petition filed by the wife, and a decree in her favour on 12/3/2009. The contention of the claim petitioner that the wife had no right to receive maintenance from the profits of the property which he purchased even months before the filing of original petition by her for maintenance, was rejected by the Family Court by following the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramankutty Purushothaman v. Amminikutty (AIR 1997 Ker 306) placing reliance on Sec. 39 of Transfer of Property Act. The claim petitioner challenged the verdict of the Family Court before the Division Bench contending that none of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ('the Act, 1956' for short) conferred right upon the wife to receive maintenance from the profits of the immovable property which belonged to her husband, and hence Sec. 39 of the Transfer of Property Act ('the T.P Act' for short) has no applicability in the case on hand. The dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan v. Sobhana (ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 822) was relied on by the learned counsel for the claim Petitioner in support of the above plea.

(3.) The Referral Bench, by taking note of the judicial precedents from Lakshman Ramachandra v. Satyabhama [(1877) ILR 2 Bom 494] onwards, on the right of a Hindu wife as per ancient Hindu Law to have maintenance from the property of her husband, sought the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel Adv.Mr.T.Krishnanunni as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court to resolve the issues involved in the case. The learned Amicus Curiae enlightened the Division Bench on all aspects of the issue, right from the historical development of the principle governing the right of a Hindu wife to have maintenance from the properties of her husband, by ratiocinating case laws on the point. The isolated and unique decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Pavayammal and Another v. Samiappa Goundan and Others [AIR 1947 Mad 376], which did not accept the right of a Hindu wife to receive maintenance from the 'profits of the immovable property' of her husband, and which emphasized the need to have something more than mere knowledge of the purchaser about the legal right of the wife over the properties of her husband (vendor), to invoke Sec. 39 of the T.P.Act, was brought to the notice of the Referral Bench as a dictum which had been overwhelmingly disapproved by the subsequent decisions of various High Courts.