Lata Maitri vs State of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 538

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
Dr. Lata Maitri and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Delhi and Another – Respondents
TEST. CAS. No. 94 of 2019, I.A. No. 17957 of 2019, I.A. No. 12506 of 2020, I.A. Nos. 3766, 3767, 5027 of 2021, I.A. No. 16325 of 2022, I.A. No. 3230 of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Radhika Chandresh, Brajesh Kr. Srivastava, Umesh Kr. Gupta.

Headnote:
Letters of Administration - Grant of LoA - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 218 - The petitioners, parents and brother of the deceased, sought grant of LoA for properties left by the deceased in Australia. The second respondent, the deceased's husband, was recognized as the sole beneficiary of the deceased's superannuation funds by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). The court held that the petitioners, as parents, were not entitled to the grant of LoA as the deceased's estate would devolve upon the second respondent under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), Sections 14, 15, and 16. The court also emphasized that pension and superannuation benefits do not form part of the deceased's estate and are governed by independent schemes.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, parents and brother of the deceased, sought grant of Letters of Administration (LoA) for the deceased's properties in Australia. The second respondent, the deceased's husband, was recognized as the sole beneficiary of the deceased's superannuation funds by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). The court held that the petitioners, as parents, were not entitled to the grant of LoA as the deceased's estate would devolve upon the second respondent under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), Sections 14, 15, and 16.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners, as parents, were not entitled to the grant of LoA as the deceased's estate would devolve upon the second respondent under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), Sections 14, 15, and 16. The court also emphasized that pension and superannuation benefits do not form part of the deceased's estate and are governed by independent schemes.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as parents, were entitled to the grant of LoA for the deceased's properties in Australia, considering the recognition of the second respondent as the sole beneficiary of the deceased's superannuation funds by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, as parents, were not entitled to the grant of LoA as the deceased's estate would devolve upon the second respondent under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), Sections 14, 15, and 16. The court also emphasized that pension and superannuation benefits do not form part of the deceased's estate and are governed by independent schemes.
Final Decision: The petition for grant of Letters of Administration (LoA) was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The present petition for grant of Letters of Administration [LoA] has been instituted by the mother [petitioner no. 1], father [petitioner no. 2] and brother [petitioner no. 3] of the late Dr. Shruti Maitri [the deceased] who is stated to have expired in Delhi on 08 March 2019. The LoA have been claimed in respect of properties described more fully in Schedule B of the petition and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:—

“Schedule B

Description of the properties left behind by Dr. Shruti Maitri:—

(1) Superannuation Fund with First State Super vide membership no. 3847784, Account No. EK9699. The value of this fund is approx. 260937 (Aus.) Dollar = Rs. 1.27 crores.

(2) Investment in Flat/Unit No. 306, Meriton Towers, 330 Church Street, Parramatta, New South Wales, Post Code - 2150, Australia of Rs. 60 lacs. Petitioner's share in the said flat as per investment of Dr. Shruti Maitri. The value of this share at present is being valued at Rs. 60 lacs + interest @ 18 p.a. = Rs. 70 lacs.

(3) Cash amount (pre-marriage savings) approx. Rs. 6 lacs in savings Bank Account with Andhra Bank.”

2. The second respondent is admittedly the husband of the deceased while respondent nos. 3 and 4 are bodies established to administer superannuation funds in the State of New South Wales, Australia. As per the admitted case of the petitioners, the deceased married the second respondent at Delhi on 03 December 2017 as per Hindu customs. It is their case that the deceased suffered an injury on 02/03 February 2019 and travelled to India on 01 March 2019 for requisite medical procedures and treatment. The petitioners further disclose that the deceased was admitted in a hospital on 04 March 2019 and was operated upon on 05/06 March 2019. It is stated that on 07 March 2019, the deceased on account of post operative complications suffered pulmonary embolism and unfortunately passed away on 08 March 2019.

3. The petition was based on an assumption that first petitioner had been nominated as the beneficiary in the superannuation funds. In terms of an intimation dated 19 August 2019, the first petitioner was informed by respondent no. 3 of the proposed release of all monies standing to the credit of the superannuation fund of the deceased in favour of the second respondent.

4. The petitioners contended that the deceased was an Indian citizen who was working in Australia on a work permit and thus the administration of her estate would be governed by Indian law. In paragraph 35 of the present petition, the petitioners alleged that the deceased had identified a flat in Australia and since she had not been granted a Permanent Resident status in that country, the same was purchased in the name of the second respondent. As per their case, the deceased is stated to have contributed 80% of the total money required towards upfront payment for acquisition of the said property. It is also conceded that the flat was mortgaged and the installments in respect thereof were paid out of the joint account maintained by the deceased and the second respondent.

5. The petition for the grant of LoA was essentially based on the petitioners' assertion that since the properties in Australia had been purchased by the deceased along with the second respondent with the former having made substantial investments therein, the petitioners by virtue of being the parents would be entitled to the grant of LoA. It was their stated case that the second respondent being the husband is excluded from pre-marriage and parental assets. The claim was based upon the petitioners' understanding of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [the HSA] with it being asserted that in terms of sub-section (2)(a) thereof the estate of the deceased would devolve upon the petitioners.

6. On 19 December 2019, the Court while issuing notice on the petition and framing directions for the publication of a citation, had granted an injunction restraining the second respondent from either alienating o