Holding

Maintenance necessarily encompasses a provision for residence, making the wife's right to reside in the matrimonial home part of her maintenance entitlement.

Summary

The husband filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of a schedule property where his wife and children were residing. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed possession in favour of the husband. The wife appealed, asserting her right to reside in the matrimonial home and relying on a previously obtained charged decree for maintenance over the same property. The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the wife could not claim a right of residence to resist the possession decree. The Supreme Court held that under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, maintenance necessarily includes provision for residence, citing the decisions in Mangat Mal and B.P. Achala Anand, and remitted the matter to the High Court to reconsider the appeal in light of this principle. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether maintenance under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 includes a right to residence in the matrimonial home.
Whether a wife can resist a decree for possession of the matrimonial home on the ground of a charged decree for maintenance.
Whether Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to the conflicting decrees.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100
Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956s. 18, s. 3(d)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 14(1)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 39

Subjects

maintenanceright of residencematrimonial homeHindu Adoption & Maintenance Actpossession decreecharged decreeSection 39 TP ActHindu law

Judgment

(2008] 16 S.C.R. 76

A KOMALAM AMMA
v.
KUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6658 of 2008)

B NOVEMBER 14, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 - ss. 3 and
c 18 - Maintenance - Right of wife to reside in matrimonial
home - Wife and children residing in the suit property -
Decree for possession of suit property in favour of husband
- Challenge to, by wife on the ground that she already
obtained charged decree for maintenance over suit property
D - Dismissed by High Court holding that wife could not claim
right of residence in matrimonial home so as to resist decree
for possession - On appeal, held: Supreme· Court in Mangat
Mal's and B.P. Achala. Anand's cases examined the question
as to whether main{enance encompasses provision for
E residence - Matter remitted to High Court to consider the
issues in the light of the ratio of aforesaid cases - Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 - s. 39.
The relationship between the respondent no. 1-
husband and the: appellant-wife were estranged. f
F Respondent no. 1 filed suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession in respect of Schedule property
where appellant and respondent no. 2 and· 3-children
were residing. Trial court and the First Appellate Court
decreed the suit in favour of respondent no. 1. Appellant
G filed second appea'1 on .the ground that she had right to
reside in the matrimonial home situated in the Scheduled t
property and that she had already obtained charged
decree for maintenance over the Schedule property. High
Court dismissed the appeal holding that the wife could
H 76
KOMALAM AMMA v. KUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI n
AND ORS.

not claim a right of residence in the matrimonial home so A
as to resist a decree for possession. Hence the present
appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Maintenance necessarily must encompass B
a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that
the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which
she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must,
therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the
like and take into account the basic need of a roof over C
the head. Provision for residence may be made either by
giving a lump sum in money, or property in lieu thereof.
It may also be made by providing, for the course of the
lady's' life, a residence and money for other necessary
expenditure. Where provision is made in this manner, by o
giving a life interest in property for the purpose of
residence, that provision is made in lieu of a pre-existing
right to maintenance and the Hindu lady acquires far
more than the vestige of title which is deemed sufficient
to attract s. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. E
[Para 9] [80-C-D-E]

1.2. The Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956,
was enacted to amend and codify the law relating to
adoptions and maintenance among Hindus, and it
defines maintenance in Section 3 (d) to include "(1) In all F
cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education
and medical attendance and treatment." [Para 11] [81-G]

1.3. The High Court did not consider the aspect
whether maintenance encompasses a provision for G
residence as considered in Mangat Mal's and B.P. Achala
Anand's cases. It will be appropriate for the High Court
to consider the issues by re-hearing the appeal in the
light of what has been stated in Mangat Mal's and B.P.
Acha/a Anand's cases. [Para 13] [82-F]
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S. C.R.

A Mangat Mal (Dead) and Anr. vs. Punni Devi (Dead) and
Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 88 .and B.P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi
Reddy and Anr. 2005 (2) SCALE 105, referred to.
Mu/la's Hindu Law (Sixteenth Edition), referred to.
B Case Law Reference:
1995 (6) sec 88 • Referred to. Para 6
2005 (2) SCALE 105 Referred to. Para 12
C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6658 of 2008.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2004 of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RS.A. No. 1192 of
2004(A).
D
G. Prakash, for the Appellant.

K. Rajeev, for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the second
appeal filed in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil f
F Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code'). The second appeal was
filed by the appellant, who was defendant No.1 in O.S. No.426
of 1986 on the file of learned first Additional Munsiffs Court,
Thiruananthapuram. She and the present respondent Nos. 2
and 3 were the defendants and respondent No.1 was the
G plaintiff, who is the husband of the appellant and father of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Suit was one for declaration of
title in respect of Plaint-A Schedule Property where the
defendants were residing and for recovery of possession with
mesne profits.
H
l. KOMALAM AMMA v. KUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI 79
AND ORS. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

3. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate court A
concurrently decreed the suit finding title over the plaint-A
Schedule property with the plaintiff-h'usband. They held that
Plaint-A Schedule property was purchased by him under Exh.A-
1 (sale deed) utilising his own funds and the funds for the
acquisition of the property were not provided by the present B
appellant-wife. The concurrent decrees passed by the courts
below were assailed before the High Court.

4. Stand of the appellant and the present respondent nos.2
and 3 was that being the wife of the plaintiff, the present
appellant is entitled to reside in the matrimonial home situated c
in the plaint schedule property. It was also pointed out that she
had already obtained a charged decree for maintenance over
the schedule property as per the decree in OS No.139 of 1977.
It was, therefore, her stand that the decree passed in the
..., present case will result in conflicting decrees defeating the D
statutory charge under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 (in short 'the TP Act').
5. The High Court was of.the view that even if the appellant
had obtained a decree for maintenance against the husband,
E
the decree passed in the case for recovery of possession does
not in any way, defeat the right of the wife to enforce the charge.
Section 39 of the T.P. Act will have operation only ifthe charged
property 1s transferred in which case, the transferee who is not
'\ a bona-fide transferee for value without notice will be liable for
the charge. The High Court further held that in view of the factual F
setting in t_he _case when the relationship between the husband
an~ the w1~e is estranged, the wife cannot still claim a right of
res1denc_e in the matrimonial home so as to resist a decree for
possession. Therefore, the second appeal was dismissed.
G
t . 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
view_expressed by the High Court runs counter to the decision
of tJi11s Court In Mangat Mal (Dead) and Anr. Vs . p unm· oev1·
(D
l ead) and Ors. (1995 (6) sec 88).

H
I
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

t-
A 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand,
supported the judgment of the High Court.

8. In Mangat Mal's case (supra), this Court was
considering the question whether maintenance encompasses
a provision for residence. The case was considered in the light
B
of Section 14(1) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short ;

'the Act').

9. Maintenance, as we see It, necessarily must encompass
a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady
c can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was ill
accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore,
include provision for food and clothing and the like and take
into account the basic need of a roof over the head. Provision
for residence may be made either by giving a lump sum in
D money, or property jn lieu thereof. It may also be made by
providing, for the course of the lady's life, a residence and
money for other necessary expenditure. Where provision is
made in this manner, by giving a life interest in property for the
purposes of residence, that provision is made in lieu of a pre- •
E existing right to maintenance and the Hindu lady acquires far
more than the vestige of title which is deemed sufficient to
attract Section 14 (1).
10. Mu Ila's Hindu Law (Sixteenth Edition) sets out the
position in law prior to the Act. The Manager of a joint f-
F Mitakshara family is under a legal obligation to maintain all male
members of the family, their wives and their children. On the
death of any one of the male members he is bound to maintain
his widow and his children. The obligation to maintain these
persons arises from the fact that the Manager is in possession
G of the family property (para 543). An heir is legally bound to
provide, out of the estate which descends to him, maintenance 1 ~
for those persons whom the late proprietor was legally or
morally bound to maintain (para 544). A wife is entitled ta be
maintained by her husband, whether he possesses property or j.
not. When a man with his eyes open marries a girl accustomed
H
KOMALAM AMMA v. KUMARA PILLAI RAGHAVAN PILLAI 81
AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
i to a certain style of living, he undertakes the obligation of A
maintaining her in that style (para 554). Awidow who does not
• succeed to the estate of her husband as his heir is entitled to
maintenance out of his separate property as well as out of
property in which he was a co-parcener at the time of his death
(para 559). A Hindu widow is, in the absence of special B
., circumstances, entitled to reside in the family dwelling house
in which she lived with her husband (para 562). The
maintenance to be allowed to a widow should be such. an
amount as will enable her to live consistently with her positio)r
as a widow, with the same degree of comfort and reasonable c
luxury as she had in her husband's house, unless there are
circumstances which affect, one way or the other, her mode of
living there. In determining the amount of maintenance the Court
should have regard, inter alia, to the provision and status of the
• deceased husband and of the widow and the reasonable wants
D
... of the widow, including not only the ordinary expenses of living,
but what she might reasonably expend for religious and other
duties incidental to her station in life (para 566). Where an
undivided family consists of two or more males, related as
father and son or otherwise, and one of them dies leaving a
widow, she is entitled to reside in the family dwelling house in E
which she lived with her husband. If the house is sold by the
surviving co-parceners without necessity, the sale does not
affect her right, and the purchaser cannot evict her until another
suitable residence is found for her (para 573). A widow who is
entitled to maintenance may sue, inter alia, for a charge on a F
specific portion .of her husband's estate for her maintenance
and residence (para 579).

11. The Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, was
enacted to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and G
maintenance among Hindus, and it defines maintenance in
Section 3 (d) to include "(1) In all cases, provision for food,
clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and
treatment."

12. In B.P. Achala Anand Vs. S. Appi Reddy and Anr. H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R

A (2005 (2) SCALE 105) it was observed as follows: +
"Having said so generally, we may now deal with the right
of a wife to reside in the matrimonial home under personal •
laws. In the factual context of the present case, we are
confining ourselves to dealing with the personal law as
B
applicable to Hindus as the parties are so. A Hindu wife
is entitled to be maintained by her husband. She is entitled \

to remain under his roof and protection. She is also entitled
to separate residence if by reason of the husband's
conduct or by his refusal to maintain her in his own place
c of residence or for other just cause she is compelled to
live apart from him. Right to residence is a part and parcel
of wife's right to maintenance. The right to maintenance
cannot be defeated by the husband executing a will to
defeat such a right. (See: MULLA, Principles of Hindu Law,
D Vol. I, 18th Ed. 2001, paras 554 and 555) The right has
come to be statutorily recognized with the enactment of the
...
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 18
of the Act provides for maintenance of wife. Maintenance
has been so defined in clause {b) of Section 3 of the Hindu
E Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as lo include therein
provision for residence amongst other things. For the
purpose of maintenance the term 'wife' includes a divorced
wife."

13. These aspects have not been considered by the High
F t-
Court. It will be appropriate for the High Court to consider the
issues by re-hearing the appeal in the light of what has been
stated in Mangat Mal's and 8.P. Achala Anand's cases
(supra).

G 14. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits by remitting the matter to the High Court.
r
15. The appeal is disposed off accordingly without any
order as to costs.
H N.J. Appeal disposed of.