On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court made an observation emphasizing that a Hindu woman, even if she doesn't possess her own income, retains the right to enjoy the property inherited from her deceased husband for her lifetime. However, the court clarified that these rights do not equate to absolute ownership over the property.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh highlighted the significance of providing Hindu women, who may lack independent income, with a life estate bestowed upon them by their husbands, especially if the husbands pass away before them. This provision serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring their financial stability throughout their lifetime."

The court noted that ensuring such security is vital to prevent the woman from becoming dependent on her children following her husband's passing.

However, the court clarified that it cannot be concluded that the entire property should be considered as maintenance, granting the wife absolute rights over it following her husband's death.

Justice Singh made these observations while presiding over a case involving a partition dispute among siblings following the demise of their father in 1989. The father had executed a will in favor of his wife, specifying that his property would be transferred to her as a life estate.

Additionally, it was stipulated in the will that the wife would have the right to collect rent from the property and utilize it. Furthermore, in the event of her demise, the property would be distributed among the children, excluding the four sons. The wife passed away in 2012.

A partition suit was initiated by four siblings—three sons and a daughter—against the other three siblings and a granddaughter from the pre-deceased son.

Before the trial court, the defendant siblings contended that the suit itself was not maintainable. They argued that according to the terms of the will, the mother was only granted a life estate in the property, limiting her rights. Therefore, they asserted that upon the mother's death, the property should devolve as specified in the will.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff siblings, determining that according to the provisions of the will, the wife had become the absolute owner of the property and had died intestate. Consequently, the trial court concluded that the property would devolve according to the rules of succession.

The defendant siblings challenged the aforementioned order before the High Court. Justice Singh, upon considering the plea, overturned the contested order, noting that the wife had not executed any will during her lifetime and had died intestate.

The court noted that neither the wife nor the children had raised any challenge to the will, indicating that the wife had no intention contrary to what her husband had expressed in his will. Additionally, the court observed that by not drafting her own will, the wife did not express any intention different from that of her husband, thereby reinforcing the presumption that she agreed to the conditions he had established before his passing.

Justice Singh emphasized that the wife's rights in the property were solely derived from the will. The court clarified that she did not inherently 'possess' any rights in the property before her husband's death, and her rights were acquired solely through the provisions of the will.

“She had the right to enjoy the income generated from the subject property during her lifetime, and this cannot be considered an absolute interest,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Kumar Solanki, Adv

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Raghav Anthwal & Mr. Charu Sharma, Advs. for R-1 to 4. Mr. Jatin Mongia & Mr. Anatesh Banon, Advocates for R-5

Title: MANMOHAN SINGH & ANR v. SHITAL SINGH & ORS.