"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Rights of Widows Under Hindu Law Cease Upon Remarriage: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment in Property Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, has clarified the legal position concerning the rights of widows under the Hindu Law, particularly focusing on the impact of remarriage on their property rights. The apex court, in its decision, emphasized that the rights of a widow in her deceased husband’s property cease upon remarriage, pursuant to the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856.

The appeal involved a property dispute originating from a suit for partition. The core issue revolved around the inheritance and title of property, particularly in the context of a widow’s remarriage and her rights to her first husband’s property. Chiruthey, having remarried after her first husband Madhavan’s death, was at the center of this legal battle. Her son from her second marriage, Chandu, claimed a share in the property, which was disputed by the defendants, the successors-in-interest of Sankaran, Chiruthey’s son from her first marriage.

Lease Agreements: The court scrutinized several lease agreements dating back to 1910. While the court deemed these transactions as unusual but valid, it underscored that Chiruthey, after her remarriage, could not confer valid title through these leases.

Remarriage Impacting Property Rights: Emphasizing on Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, the court observed, “All right and interest which any widow may have in her deceased husband’s property...shall upon her remarriage cease and determine as if she had then died.”

Validity of Claims: The court highlighted that post-1910, Chiruthey’s role was limited to that of a lessee, and any claim to property ownership through her, especially after her remarriage, was legally unsustainable.

Adverse Possession: Although not a focal point of this judgment, the contention of ownership by adverse possession was rejected.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, affirming the First Appellate Court’s dismissal of the suit. It concluded that Chiruthey and, consequently, her son Chandu, had no valid claim to the property for partition.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2024

Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and Ors.

 

Similar News