Whether wife will acquire absolute right over property which was given to her in lieu of maintenance?

 Hence, applying the above principles enunciated, to answer the substantial question of law framed in this appeal, it could be safely said that the suit property was given to appellant No. 1 under Exhibit D. 5 in lieu of maintenance and there could be no restriction on the appellants' right over the property and it definitely did not require any registered conveyance in order that she could claim an absolute right over the property on such property being given in lieu of her maintenance.

11. Incidentally, in Tulasamma's case, the instrument, under which the property had been conferred on Tulasamma was circumscribed by certain conditions. The question whether those conditions restricted the right of the Tulasamma was covered under sub-section (2) of Section 14 was answered in the negative and the Court read down the conditions imposed and the property was treated as her absolute property. In the present case on hand, there are not even any such restrictions imposed and it was acted upon, in the mutation entries being effected on an application made by the plaintiff himself and therefore he was estopped from contending otherwise to defeat the right which is absolutely protected under Section 14 of the HS Act.

Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants and both the Courts below were wrong in their conclusions that the sale deed in favour of appellant No. 2 was null and void as it was on the basis of the opinion formed that appellant No. 1 did not have absolute right over the property. The substantial question of law stands answered in the vein aforesaid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (KALABURAGI BENCH)

Regular Second Appeal No. 562/2005

Decided On: 19.07.2016

 Anusuya and Ors. Vs.  Mallayya

Coram:Anand Byrareddy, J.

Citation:AIR 2016 karnataka, 201

Print Page

Whether wife will become owner of properties acquired by her in lieu of maintenance?

Section 14(2) applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts etc., which create independent and new titles in favour of the females for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm. endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights. In such cases a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and s. 14(1) will not operate in this sphere. Where, however, an instrument merely de- clares or recognises a pre-existing right, such as to a claim to maintenance .or partition or share to which the female is entitled, the sub-section has absolutely no appli- cation and the female's limited interest would automatically be enlarged into an absolute one by force of s. 14(1) and the restrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to be ignored. Thus where a property is allotted or transferred to a female in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, the instrument is taken out of the ambit of sub- s. (2) and would be governed by s. 14(1) despite any re- strictions placed on the powers of the transferee. 

Supreme Court of India

V. Tulasamma & Ors vs V. Sesha Reddi (Dead) By L. Rs on 17 March, 1977

Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1944, 1977 SCR (3) 261

Print Page