18 December 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Hindu Succession Act Doesn’t disqualify Widows From Inheriting Deceased Husband’s Property After Remarriage: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Hindu Succession Act that prevents a widow from inheriting or receiving a share of her deceased husband's property upon remarriage. The bench, consisting of Justice R. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan, noted that while the Hindu Remarriage Act of 1856 previously disqualified a widow from inheriting property after remarriage, this Act was repealed when the Hindu Succession Act came into effect. The bench further highlighted that under the Hindu Succession Act, only the widow of a pre-deceased son, the widow of a pre-deceased son's son, or the widow of a brother was disqualified from inheriting upon remarriage. However, this provision was also repealed with the 2005 amendment.

“The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not include any provision that disqualifies widows from inheriting their husband's property or from receiving a share of it upon remarriage. A careful reading of the law reveals that only the widows of a pre-deceased son, a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, or the widow of a brother faced disqualification upon remarriage. However, this provision was repealed by the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 39 of 2005,” the court stated.

The court was hearing an appeal against the decision of the Additional District Judge, who had denied a widow a share in her deceased husband's property after she remarried his brother. The original suit had been filed by another brother of the deceased husband, seeking an equal share of the property.

The suit properties originally belonged to one Chinna Gounder, who had transferred the property to his three sons – Sevi Gounder, Chinnapaiya Gounder, and Chinna Gounder. Sevi Gounder passed away, leaving behind the original plaintiff and the defendant. The appellant's husband was the pre-deceased son of Sevi Gounder.

The defendant (original plaintiff) argued that the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act should apply in this case, as Sevi Gounder's father, who had originally settled the property, had passed away long before the Hindu Succession Act was enacted. 

The court, however, observed that according to the settlement, the properties were to be inherited by the male descendants of the settlor. Therefore, once the settlement was executed, any male descendants born to the settlor became vested remaindermen. If any male descendant died before the life estate holder, they would pass away with the vested remainder. The court further explained that such a vested remainder would, upon the remainderman’s death, be passed on to his heirs.

The court noted that the appellant's husband had died in 1968, after the Hindu Succession Act had come into effect. Consequently, upon his death, his wife and two brothers would inherit the property in equal shares of 1/3rd each. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was incorrect and issued an order in line with this reasoning.

Case- Malliga (Died) and Others vs. S. Shanmugam (Died) and Others

2. Domestic Violence Act Can Be Invoked for Past Domestic Relationships As Well: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has ruled that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) can be applied in cases involving past domestic relationships, where the parties have lived together in a shared household at any point in time. Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified that the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act is not limited to current cohabitation, but also includes relationships where the parties had previously shared a residence.

While delivering the judgment, Justice Dhar remarked, “The definition clearly indicates that a 'domestic relationship' includes a relationship between two persons who may have lived together in a shared household at any point in time. Therefore, even though the respondent left the shared household in 2016, it is undisputed that she had lived with the petitioners in a shared household before that.”

The case stemmed from the respondent's petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging domestic violence by her husband and in-laws, including the petitioners. The allegations included dowry harassment, verbal abuse, and coercion. The petitioners sought to have the proceedings dismissed; arguing that the respondent had withdrawn a previous petition and had not lived with them since 2016.

In response to the petitioners' argument regarding the withdrawal of the earlier petition, the Court dismissed the applicability of res judicata or similar principles. Justice Dhar highlighted that the respondent had clearly explained that the earlier petition was withdrawn based on assurances from the petitioners that she would be taken back into the matrimonial home.

The Court further noted that when these assurances were not fulfilled, the respondent had no option but to approach the Court once more. Additionally, the Court observed that the DV Act is a special legislation, and its proceedings are not strictly governed by the principles that apply to civil suits.

The petitioners also contended that the respondent's claims under the DV Act were disqualified due to the absence of a current domestic relationship. Rejecting this argument, the Court emphasized that Section 2(f) of the DV Act covers prior shared residence as part of a "domestic relationship."

Justice Dhar reiterated that the existence of a domestic relationship does not depend on ongoing cohabitation; it is sufficient that the parties had lived together in a shared household at any point in the past.

Both the trial court and the appellate court had determined that the allegations were specific and serious enough to justify proceedings under the DV Act. Upholding these findings, Justice Dhar dismissed the petition, affirming that the respondent had made a prima facie case of domestic violence and that the proceedings were maintainable.

Case- Sardul Sigh Son of Joga Singh vs. Davinder Kour wife of Gurinder Singh

3. Purchaser of Property Tenants to Vacate or Face Eviction Not Guilty of ‘Criminal Intimidation’: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC, which was filed by tenants against the purchaser of a property who had asked them to vacate the premises or face eviction. Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul ruled that it was for the complainant, Garg, to file a civil suit. She further stated that initiating criminal proceedings for ulterior motives is legally improper and constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. Based on the materials in the case diary, the court noted that there was only one instance in which the petitioner/owner allegedly asked the complainant/tenant to vacate the premises. It was following this single alleged threat of eviction that the criminal case was filed.

A person who has purchased a property, with tenants refusing to vacate, would typically request the tenants to leave the premises before initiating eviction proceedings. Justice Paul noted that the elements required to support a charge of "criminal intimidation" are not prima facie present in this case, and therefore, the proceedings should be quashed.

The present revisional application was filed to quash the proceedings under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The allegations in the written complaint dated 12.04.2017 indicated that the dispute was between the tenant and the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser of the property, concerning the eviction of the tenants.

The court observed that, based on the contents of the written complaint, the complainant appeared to fear forcible eviction. However, the court noted that this concern should be addressed by the appropriate Civil Court, as it pertains to eviction. The present case was initiated on the grounds that the petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant with forcible eviction.

Additionally, it was noted that the Magistrate had instructed the enquiry officer to initiate proceedings under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable offence. Despite this, the officer proceeded to file an FIR, which ultimately led to a charge-sheet. The court deemed this action to be an abuse of the judicial process.

The court then examined Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC, which address criminal intimidation. It was noted that the complainant had failed to appear before the Court, and there were several judgments distinguishing between civil and criminal liability. The court remarked that repeated rulings on this matter had been overlooked and were not being applied or enforced.

As a result, the case was quashed, and the plea was granted.

Case- Sudip Pal vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.