Nagpur: Nagpur bench Bombay High Court has decided that a widow, who then remarried, still has the right to assets of a husband who has died if the process of succession (property devolution if someone dies before him) Second marriage.
“The status of a woman as a widow must be there on the date when succession is open, even if she remembers later in the day.
The words” if on the open succession date “did not find a place in Part 2 of the Hindu re-widow wedding law , 1856.
So, we must respect the intention of the legislator while combining these provisions in the Section 24 Hindu Succession Act, 1956, “said Justice Shriram Modan.
While partly allowed the petition by Jaiwantabai Wankhede workers to the daughter of her disadaming Semanda, the judge said if he did not marry when succession opened, disqualification according to Part 24 did not apply to the last.
The 59-year-old applicant of Akola has approached HC to regain RS65,000 received by Sunana after his son’s death of Anil, Jalan Again in 1991.
The following was married again after his son’s death, he demanded his daughter -in-law must be disqualified from the property His son matched the act of Hindu succession, 1956, when he lost this.
“If the widow has not remarried when open succession, disqualification below Section 24 will not apply.
Sunanda remarried in May 1991, which after the opening of succession on April 19, 1991.
Therefore, the Petitioner’s disputes to disqualify respondents cannot be accepted,” Judge clarify.
Partly upholding the trial court verdict, the modest justice said the mother and wife of the person who died, became a first-class heir, was entitled to get the same part in its properties.
“As referred to in Section 10 of the law in 1956, widows (rules 1) and mothers (rules 2) deserve to get one share of each.
Therefore, both are entitled to 50% of the deceased property.
It is very true that if we have to deal With certain party rights, we must consider the relevant legal provisions as a whole.
“Anyil, who works by Indian train, died of an accident in 1991.
He has nomined Sunana’s wife as his heirs with his employer.
However, there are differences between them and they live separately, as they care about by their mothers.
After his death, the train handed over RS65,000 to his wife, who was challenged by his mother in court court in Akola.
The trial court ordered the train to pay contributions to Jaiwantabai, which was challenged at the first appeals court.
But this court recognizes the Sunana section and asks the train to distribute the amount.
The mother challenged this decision at HC.
“The wife has no right to get the entire amount.
He will definitely return 50% to the applicant.
The doctrine of unfair enrichment applies.
He must pay the amount within three months with a 6% interest,” said the court.
What HC said * Women’s status Because the widow must be there on the date when succession is open, even if he remarries later in the day * words “if on the open succession date” did not find a place in Hindu back marriage law, 1856 * Widows have not remarried when open succession, disqualification below Section 24 will not apply * The Widow Married in May 1991, which after opening succession on April 19, 1991 * Therefore, the Petitioner’s disputes to disqualify respondents cannot be accepted