A Hindu wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband's property, independent of statutory provisions, subject to specific conditions about purchaser's knowledge.

JUDGMENT :

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the claim petitioner in an application filed under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Her contention is that she is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of a property which was subsequently attached in a proceeding initiated by the first respondent for recovery of maintenance from her husband, the fourth respondent.

2. The property in question originally belonged to the husband, who sold it to the claim petitioner prior to the order of attachment. The attachment in the original petition was effected on 14.11.2007, while the original petition itself was decreed in favour of the wife on 12.03.2009. The sale deed in favour of the claim petitioner had been executed earlier, on 16.07.2007. The property purchased by the claim petitioner comprised 5 cents out of the total extent of 11 cents owned by the husband.

3. The Family Court dismissed the claim petition, holding that the wife was entitled to enforce her right of maintenance against the property, as she had a charge over it. In doing so, the court relied on the decision of this Court in Ramankutty Purushothaman v. Amminikutty (AIR 1997 Ker 306 ).

4. We have heard Sri.S.Balachandran (Kulasekharam), the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.G.Krishnakumari, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/husband.

5. Earlier this court framed the following questions and referred the matter for the consideration of a Full Bench:

“(a) Is a Hindu wife entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ?

(b) Is there not an apparent conflict between the views expressed in Vijayan v. Sobhana and Others [ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 822], or Sathiyamma v. Gayathri and Others [2013 (3) KHC 322], Nysha v. P.Suresh Babu (MANU/KE/2266/2019) and Hadiya (Minor) v. Shameera M.M. [2025 (3) KHC 131], and what is the correct law?”

6. As per order dated 14/01/2026, the Full Bench has answered the reference in the following lines:

“23. In conclusion to the discussions aforesaid, we answer the reference made as follows:

(i) A Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

(ii) The aforesaid right of the Hindu wife has to be presumed to be in a dormant stage till she initiates legal steps to realise maintenance from her husband and his properties, or till she is deprived of such maintenance due to the death of her husband.

(iii) During the above dormant stage of the aforesaid right, the purchasers of the immovable properties belonging to the husband of that Hindu wife cannot be presumed to be having the knowledge of such right for invoking Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , or Section 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 . However, if there existed evidence to show that the purchaser, at the time of sale, was aware of denial of maintenance by the seller to his wife and any subsisting claim for maintenance which arose out of such denial, or if there were reasons to show that the transfer was gratuitous, then the wife’s right for maintenance will get the protection and privilege of of the T.P Act. (iv) If any such transfer is effected during the period when a legal action, which even include the registered legal notice issued by the wife to her husband, has been initiated for getting maintenance from the husband and his properties; or during the period when she is deprived of such maintenance d