Bombay High Court Rules: Property Received by Hindu Widow in Partition or Maintenance Is Her Absolute Right
In a landmark judgment reinforcing women’s property rights under Hindu law, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that any property received by a Hindu widow, either in partition or in lieu of maintenance, shall be treated as her absolute property, not as a limited estate.
Justice Rohit W. Joshi, delivering the verdict, emphasized that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is a substantive legal entitlement — not “an empty formality or an act of grace,” but a tangible right against property.
Case Background: The Bhamburkar Family Dispute
The case stems from a decades-old property dispute within the Bhamburkar family of Nagpur.
In 1928, one Balaji Bhamburkar purchased several properties and built a house in 1931. After his death in 1932, his estate was divided among his three sons — Harihar, Keshao, and Krushna — and his widow, Laxmibai, through a deed executed on October 26, 1953. Under this deed, the disputed house was allotted to Laxmibai.
Laxmibai later gifted the house to her grandson Vinay Harihar Bhamburkar through a registered gift deed before her death in December 1979.
Nearly a decade later, in 1988, other descendants — Bhavana, Prashant, and Pradnya Bhamburkar — filed a civil suit claiming that Laxmibai held only a life interest in the property and thus lacked the right to transfer it by way of gift.
Procedural History: Trial and Appeal Decisions
The trial court (April 2018) and the appellate court (June 2022) both dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, upholding the validity of Laxmibai’s gift deed.
The plaintiffs then approached the Bombay High Court in 2022, challenging the lower courts’ findings.
Advocate S.P. Kshirsagar, appearing for the appellants, argued that the 1953 document was not a formal partition deed but a family settlement, implying that Laxmibai’s ownership was limited to her lifetime and did not constitute absolute ownership.
In response, Advocate N.A. Jachak, representing the respondents, contended that as Balaji’s widow, Laxmibai possessed a pre-existing right of maintenance in her husband’s estate. Hence, under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property vested in her as her absolute property, irrespective of any restrictive clauses in the document.
High Court’s Ruling: Reinforcing Absolute Ownership
The Nagpur Bench concurred with the respondent’s view, holding that:
“Any property possessed by a Hindu woman shall be held by her as a full owner and not as a limited owner.”
Justice Rohit W. Joshi noted that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance extends not only against her husband but also against his separate and ancestral property, and that this right continues after his death.
The Court ruled that any property given to a Hindu widow in lieu of maintenance or through partition constitutes her absolute estate, and such ownership is protected under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Judicial Precedents Cited
Justice Joshi referred to Supreme Court precedents which have consistently interpreted Section 14(1) in favour of Hindu women’s absolute ownership rights:
-
V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977) 3 SCC 99 – The Supreme Court held that property given to a Hindu woman in lieu of maintenance becomes her absolute property, even if there are restrictive conditions.
-
Eramma v. Veerupana (1966 AIR 1879) – Recognized that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is a pre-existing legal right, and not a new grant under the Act.
-
Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai (1979) 3 SCC 300 – Clarified that any property possessed by a Hindu woman, whether acquired before or after the 1956 Act, is held by her as full owner under Section 14(1).
Citing these authorities, the Bombay High Court concluded that the 1953 partition deed vested absolute ownership in Laxmibai, and the subsequent gift deed in favour of her grandson was legally valid.
Statutory and Constitutional Framework
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
-
Section 14(1): Confers absolute ownership on Hindu women over property possessed by them, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act.
-
Section 14(2): Carves out exceptions for properties acquired under instruments prescribing limited ownership, but this does not apply when the property is given in recognition of a pre-existing right such as maintenance.
Constitutional Provisions
-
Article 14: Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.
-
Article 15(1) & 15(3): Prohibit discrimination on grounds of sex and empower the State to make special provisions for women.
-
Article 300A: Protects the right to property as a constitutional right.
These provisions collectively ensure that Hindu women’s property and inheritance rights are recognized as equal and enforceable legal entitlements, not mere concessions.
Key Observations of the Court
-
A Hindu woman’s right to maintenance is a tangible and enforceable legal right, not a symbolic or charitable entitlement.
-
Property received in partition or in lieu of maintenance is absolute property, even if the document of transfer uses restrictive language.
-
The right to maintenance extends against both ancestral and self-acquired property of the husband, continuing after his death.
-
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was enacted to remove the disabilities imposed by traditional Hindu law, thus ensuring equal property rights for women.
Conclusion: A Milestone for Women’s Property Rights
The Bombay High Court’s decision reaffirms the progressive spirit of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, ensuring that Hindu widows are not relegated to limited ownership or dependence.
By recognizing Laxmibai’s absolute ownership, the judgment upholds the principle that a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance and property is her inherent and pre-existing right — a right protected both by statute and constitutional equality.
This ruling serves as a powerful precedent for reinforcing gender equality in property inheritance and ownership within the Hindu legal framework.

Comments
Post a Comment