Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The right to interdict an alienation is one peculiar to a member of a coparcenary, which he gets by reason of his having acquired an interest in a property immediately on his conception or birth and which right could be exercised by him alone and not by any other member of the family his wife or daughter. The Act only conferred on the widow a right to claim partition and separate possession of whatever her husband was entitled to in the Joint family property on the date of the partition claimed by the widow, instead of her right to claim a sum of money as and for maintenance out of the estate. Though there is no doubt that the Act does not effect a severance of the joint family on the death of the member of the joint family, who leaves a widow, and the joint family continues for all practical purposes, at any rate on the date of the partition her husband is treated as a divided coparcener on the date of the partition at the instance of the widow and his share which is allowed to be taken by his widow is what the widow of a separated member would be entitled in the absence of an issue to inherit In her husband's property. By this observation we do not hold that the estate which she gets is by inheritance and we are inclined to agree with the view taken by Bhagwati and Dixit JJ. in -- ' (I)', that under the Act she does not get either by survivorship or by Inheritance, but it is a special statutory right which she gets solely by reason of her being the widow of her husband. She would not be entitled to question any alienation made by the manager even though her husband would be entitled to such a right. "Interest", therefore, in Section 3(2) of the Act does not include a right to interdict an alienation, or any other right, which her husband possessed and which could only be exercised by a coparcener and not by any member of the joint family.

21. The Act, which has been brought into the statute book for the purpose of giving better rights to married women and dealing only with a particular and defined aspect of the widow's rights to joint family property and not being comprehensive enough and not pretending to cover all the rights which a Hindu widow would be entitled to In respect of joint family property, has given rise to certain difficulties and anomalies in the matter of ascertaining and adjudicating on a Hindu widow's rights in general in or to the Joint family property. If instead of a gift, her husband had alienated most of the family properties in favour of strangers for a consideration with a view to deprive his widow of any share or made an alienation by which her share would be considerably reduced, though such an alienation would not be upheld if challenged by a coparcener, if in such a case she claims a partition under the Act, she could only ask for a share in the joint family property as it then stands, the extent of which must have been considerably reduced by reason of the improvident alienation made by her husband 6r by the 'karta' of the family. In such a case, she would be disentitled from questioning the alienation, as under the Act she would be entitled only to such interest or the quantum of share which her husband would be entitled on the date of the partition.

But the question has been raised whether the right of the widow to maintenance still subsists after her being given a right to partition and to recover her husband's interest in the joint family property. It is stated in Mayne's Hindu Law, 11th Edn. at page 711.

"The rights to maintenance of the widows mentioned in the Act are not expressly abolished; but it is obvious that as the Act confers upon the widow rights of succession in respect of all the husband's property, the right of maintenance allowed to her under the ordinary Hindu law would no longer be available; for Hindu law allows them maintenance only because of their exclusion from inheritance and from a share on partition."

22. In -- 'Sarojinidevi v. Sri Kristna', AIR 1944 Mad 401 (K), where a widow claimed maintenance in addition to a share in the non-agricultural properties, the question arose as to her right to claim maintenance in addition to a share in the non-agricultural properties and Patanjali Sastri J. (as he then was), in delivering the judgment of the Bench, observed at page 402:

"The question accordingly arises whether, notwithstanding the right to a share in the non-agricultural properties of the family allowed to her under the Hindu Women's Bights to Property Act, 1937, the widow of a deceased coparcener is still entitled to any right of maintenance as under the ordinary Hindu law. It seems to us that this question must be answered in the affirmative. It may well be that, if the Act conferred upon the widow a right of succession in respect of all her husband's property, the right of maintenance allowed to her under the ordinary Hindu law as compensation for her exclusion from inheritance would no longer be available although nothing is said in the Act about right of maintenance. But that is not the position according to the decision of the Federal Court already referred to (In re the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937'; AIR 1941 FC 72 (L)). The widow still stands excluded from succession to agricultural land in the absence of provincial legislation on parallel lines in respect of such land. It cannot, therefore, be said that the reason of the right had ceased to exist and the right is gone. It would be strange and anomalous if, as a result of an enactment designed to give 'better rights' to the widow, she were to be placed in a worse position by being deprived of her pre-existing right of maintenance, with consequences which may well prove disastrous where the bulb of her husband's joint or separate property consists of agricultural land."