New Delhi: Is a widow entitled to any share in the property of her mother-in-law? The answer is no, if the husband dies before the mother-in-law.
In a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court earlier this month, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasised on this anomaly in Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which talks about the general rules of succession for female Hindus, who die without a will.
In such a case, priority in inheritance is given to the children of the deceased woman, her grandchildren in case of a son or daughter, who passed away before her or predeceased her, and her husband. This effectively means that the provision does not give any entitlement to her widowed daughter-in-law over her property.
In its judgment, the court highlighted the fact that “a provision intended to benefit one woman (deceased woman), is working to the disadvantage of another woman (widow/ daughter-in-law)”.
“(I)t is an anomaly in the legislation, which needs rectification,” Justice Krishna added.
“While the intention of the legislature under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1956 may have been bona fide; however, the present case is demonstrative of how Section 15(1) of the Act, 1956 unfortunately, works against the woman herself i.e. the widow of a predeceased son,” the court observed.
The case before the court was filed by a Delhi-based woman against her son, for the partition of a property in West Delhi, alleging ill treatment at the hands of her son and daughter-in-law.
What does the law say and what has the high court now said about it? ThePrint explains.
What the law says
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, says that in case of a female Hindu dying without a will, her property shall first go to her “sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband”.
The property will secondly go to the heirs of her husband, thirdly to the mother and father, fourthly to the heirs of the father, and lastly to the heirs of the mother.
Section 16 of this law clarifies the order of succession and the manner of distribution among the heirs of a female Hindu. It says that among the heirs listed in Section 15, those in the first entry shall be preferred to those in succeeding entries.
This means that the wife of a man, who dies before his mother, does not have any right to a share in the property of her mother-in-law.
Last year in November, the Supreme Court had also taken these two provisions into consideration, to observe that the widow of a predeceased son is not entitled to receive any share in the property of her mother-in- law.
Also Read: ‘Delay on part of accused, not prosecution’ — what court said in rejecting Umar Khalid’s bail plea
The anomaly
Under the 1956 law, in case of a Hindu male who dies without a will, the wife and children of his predeceased son are recognised as heirs.
In its order, the Delhi High Court took note of this anomaly and observed, “The result being that the children of such predeceased child alone take the benefit of the estate of their grandmother, who has died intestate.”
The consequence, the court asserted, was that “a widowed daughter-in-law who may have served her mother-in-law during her lifetime and also taken care of her children, suffers a rude shock to realise that despite being a member of her matrimonial family, she gets no protection of property and is vulnerable to being shown the door by her own children at an age when she actually needs the security of property”.
The court observed that while the intention of the legislature under Section 15 “may have been bona fide; however, the present case is demonstrative of how Section 15 (1) of the 1956 Act unfortunately works against the woman herself i.e. the widow of a predeceased son”.
The case before high court
In the case before the court, the plaintiff woman had claimed that she had inherited the property from her mother-in-law, who had entered into a Memorandum of Family Settlement in May 1998, with her two sons, daughter and husband. The portion of the property in question was agreed to come to the plaintiff woman’s husband.
However, her husband passed away in September 2000, leaving behind his wife (the plaintiff), a son and a daughter as legal heirs. The daughter had relinquished her share in favour of the plaintiff woman and her brother in 2010.
The woman had now filed a partition suit, alleging harassment and physical violence at the hands of her son and his wife. She submitted that she had filed various complaints against them.
In response, her son had contended that the suit was just his mother’s attempt to grab the property as she had no legal right to the property, and only had a right to reside in the house. He asserted that the family settlement was unregistered and does not confer any right on his mother.
He had further pointed out that the plaintiff woman’s husband had died during the lifetime of his grandmother, and relied on Sections 15 and 16 of the 1956 Act, which say that such a property goes to the sons and daughters of the predeceased children. This, he said, meant that his grandmother’s property should go to him and his sister, and not his mother, since his father passed away before his grandmother.
What the court ruled
At the outset, the court examined the settlement deed in question, and ruled that it did not confer any rights in favour of the family members, because it was unregistered.
However, the court opined that the family settlement was not a partition deed, “but by its tone and tenor it can be construed as an expression of intention” of the plaintiff’s mother-in-law to bequeath her property. It said that the document was similar to a will.
However, the court then found that even if this document was considered to be a will, the plaintiff would not get any benefit because her husband passed away before his mother, and the document did not stipulate who the property would go to in case of the husband’s demise.
As for the relinquishment deed that the plaintiff’s daughter had executed in favour of her mother and brother, the court opined that the daughter “gave her share equally in favour of mother and brother”. It then opined that this relinquishment deed could be construed as a gift deed executed by the daughter in favour of her mother.
The court, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff woman was entitled to 25 percent share of the property through this deed.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: What’s Article 329(b) invoked by EC in SC that restricts judicial intervention in poll process