Widow's Right: Limited to Maintenance

This right of survivorship, on the other hand, is fully recognized by the Mitakshara as excluding the widow and other heirs in the enumeration of Yajnavalkya when there are undivided coparceners to inherit the estate. The rules are a consequence of the doctrine that the right of each coparcener extends to the whole estate.

It is fully owned in every part, notwithstanding the death of one of the joint tenants. If the coparceners of the deceased are his sons, they, as in Bengal, take precedence over all other claimants. If they divide the estate, they must allot their mother an equal share, as well as to any sonless widow of their father.

However, this does not necessarily grant the widows proprietorship of the estate before its partition. The sons must, from the moment of their father's death, be regarded as the sole owners, yet they are obligated to provide for the widow's maintenance. The widow, in turn, has the competence to have the estate made answerable for her maintenance. The widow's claim is strictly for maintenance and maintenance only, without any defined share in the estate, even upon partition.

The kind of maintenance she can claim is dependent on the fluctuating circumstances of the family. Although she may choose to have her claim recognized as chargeable on the coparceners, reduced to certainty, and secured as a specific charge on the estate, she may also refrain from such a course. She might hope to share in the improving circumstances of the family, or through carelessness, leave the coparceners with an unlimited estate to deal with at their discretion, sharing in their misfortunes as well as fortunes.

Ramanandan v. Rangammal
 

This case was considered by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court. The learned judges of the Madras High Court considered the claim of a Hindu female's right of residence in a dwelling-house against a purchaser thereof. Relying on the aforesaid Bombay High Court judgment, Muthusami Ayyar, J., observed:

"It must be observed here that, though the mother living with and under the protection of her sons submits to their dealing with ancestral property, the submission is under Hindu law subject to this condition, viz., that the managing coparcener who deals with the property must act, either really or to the purchaser's knowledge, within the scope of his authority as the manager of a joint fund.


As to the mother's right of residence in the family house, it is a right inherent in her and an incident of her status as mother. The son cannot arbitrarily eject her from it. There is no indefiniteness as to the specific property to which it is referable, and since the residence of Hindu females in family houses is a fact well known in the country, a purchaser was held not entitled to eject her unless he showed that the sale bound her interest. The equity of a purchaser for value did not extend to the mother's right of residence in specific property, viz., the family house, unless the sale was binding on her."
 

Section 12(2) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954

When there is a partition by division of the family estate, a widow cannot be recognized as the owner of such a share until the partition is actually made, as she has no pre-existing right in the estate except a right of maintenance. With the joint status of the family, any of the above-mentioned females can claim a share.

It is clear from decided cases that under Mitakshara law, a widow is entitled to a share upon partition between the sons, but she is not entitled to claim her share until partition is effected.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073

Also Read:

• Rights Of A Hindu Widow
• Succession Rights Of Women In Hindu Law