INTRODUCTION
In a landmark judgment that strengthens the economic security of married Hindu women, a three-judge bench of the Kerala High Court has ruled that a Hindu wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband’s immovable property, even beyond the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The Court has clarified that such a right, although arising out of the relationship of marriage, becomes enforceable as soon as the right to maintenance is denied or legal action is initiated, and is protected by Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The verdict was given by Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, P.V. Kunhikrishnan, and G. Girish. This verdict clarified the conflicting opinions expressed in earlier decisions of the Kerala High Court on the matter.
BACKGROUND
The case arose as a third-party buyer purchased part of the immovable property from a Hindu husband who was living separately from his wife. Later, the wife filed an original petition in the Family Court for maintenance. During the hearing of the case, the property was attached on the 14th November 2007, and later, the decree for maintenance was passed in her favour.
The buyer challenged this attachment, arguing that he was able to purchase the property legally before the filing of the maintenance petition and that his wife was not entitled to receive any maintenance amount from the immovable property under HAMA. The Family Court completely rejected this argument, supported by the decision in Ramankutty Purushothaman v. Amminikutty (1997 SCC OnLine Ker 37), which was based on Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Aggrieved over this, the purchaser approached the High Court on the plea that none of the provisions of HAMA were applicable to the effect that a wife was entitled to maintenance from the immovable properties of her living husband. Therefore, Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable.
KEY POINTS
Upon observing that there existed split judicial pronouncements on this issue, the Division Bench of the High Court requested the assistance of an Amicus Curiae and also proceeded to analyse the evolution of the judicial position on the Hindu wife’s right to maintenance. By Order dated 11 July 2025, referring the case to a larger Bench for adjudication on whether the Hindu wife can be granted maintenance out of her husband’s immovable property independent of HAMA, and to clarify the apparent conflict created by the judgments in Vijayan vs. Sobhana (2007 SCC OnLine Ker 21)and later judgments such as Sathiyamma vs. Gayathri (2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24180), Nysya vs. P. Suresh Babu (2019 SCC OnLine Ker 4838) and Hadiya vs. Shameera M. M. (2019 SCC OnLine Ker 4838).
The court held that the right to maintenance of a Hindu wife under Hindu law in ancient times was based upon texts of Manu, Narada, and Yajnavalkya, which were not denied to women by previous judicial pronouncements. Under the HAMA, Section 4 provides that it will override the old Hindu laws, customs, or texts in case of inconsistency with the Act.
The Court observed that even though HAMA does not define a wife of a living husband as a “dependent” under Section 21, such an omission could not be held to deprive her of recourse against her husband’s property when maintenance is refused. Such a denial would be unjust and against the spirit of both ancient Hindu law and HAMA.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
While interpreting Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court held that the right of a wife to have maintenance out of the immovable property’s profits would not be affected by a transfer if such a transferee had notice of the denial of maintenance to her or the transfer was gratuitous. Relying on Banda Manikyam v. Banda Venkayamma (1956 SCC OnLine AP 192) the Court held that the wife’s right emerges from the time of marriage and remains dormant in the initial stages. It becomes inchoate when maintenance is refused or a suit is filed. Then only it crystallise into a charge upon judicial determination.
The Court explicitly rejected the stance in the case of Vijayan v. Sobhana and held it to be in inconsistent with the majority judicial views imposed under Sathiyamma, Nysha, and Hadiya.
CONCLUSION
The Kerala High Court has unequivocally held that the Hindu wife is entitled to claim maintenance allowance from the immovable property of her husband even beyond the scope of HAMA and this entitlement is secured by Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 once she raises her right through a legal proceeding. The judgment achieves a balance between the protection of bona fide purchasers and avoiding the transfer of properties being used to circumvent title to legitimate claims of maintenance payments. It is a significant development in the protection extended to the married Hindu wife.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: USIKA K
