Hindu Wife Can Claim Maintenance from Husband’s Property Even After Sale: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a Hindu wife can enforce her right to maintenance against her husband’s immovable property even after it has been sold, provided legal proceedings were initiated earlier or the buyer had notice of her claim.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Hindu Wife Can Claim Maintenance from Husband’s Property Even After Sale: Kerala High Court

KERALA: In a landmark judgment, a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that a Hindu wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband’s immovable property, even if such property has been transferred to a third party, provided certain conditions are satisfied.

The ruling was delivered on January 14, 2026, by a Full Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, and Justice G. Girish in Sulochana v. Anitha & Others. The decision resolves long-standing judicial conflict on whether a wife’s right to maintenance extends beyond the husband’s personal obligation to his property.

Background of the Case

The reference arose from a matrimonial appeal where a bona fide purchaser challenged the attachment of land bought from a man who was estranged from his wife. The wife had subsequently initiated maintenance proceedings, resulting in a decree attaching the husband’s property.

The purchaser argued that since the sale preceded the maintenance petition, the wife had no enforceable right against the property, relying on the Kerala High Court’s earlier decision in Vijayan v. Sobhana (2007).

Conflicting rulings from later Division Benches prompted the matter to be referred to a Full Bench for authoritative resolution.

Legal Questions Before the Court

  1. Can a Hindu wife claim maintenance from her husband’s immovable property even outside the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956?
  2. Is there a conflict between earlier Kerala High Court rulings on this issue, and what is the correct legal position?

Full Bench Ruling

The Court categorically held that:

A Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband, dehors the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Although the Act does not expressly state that maintenance can be recovered from the husband’s property, the Court ruled that such an interpretation would result in grave injustice to abandoned wives.

The Bench introduced an important doctrinal clarification by holding that the wife’s right to claim maintenance from her husband’s property exists from marriage; however, such right remains in a “dormant stage” (unenforceable) until it is activated by the denial of maintenance or the initiation of legal proceedings, or upon the husband’s death.

The Court harmonised Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, holding that a purchaser cannot be presumed to have notice of the wife’s right during the dormant stage. However, the wife’s right binds the transferee if:

  • The purchaser had notice of denial of maintenance or a pending claim, or
  • The transfer was gratuitous, or
  • The transfer occurred after legal action (including issuance of a legal notice) was initiated.

In such cases, the wife can enforce her maintenance claim against the transferred property.

The Full Bench expressly held that the earlier decision in Vijayan v. Sobhana (2007), which denied a wife’s right to proceed against her husband’s property, does not lay down the correct law.

The Court affirmed the correctness of later decisions, such as:

  • Sathiyamma v. Gayathri
  • Nysha v. P. Suresh Babu
  • Hadiya (Minor) v. Shameera

The Court poignantly observed:

“It would be nothing short of a travesty of justice if a hapless Hindu woman abandoned by her husband is left without any remedy against his property.”

Appearance:
Amicus Curiae: Senior Counsel T Krishnanunni
The purchaser: Advocate S Balachandran Kulasekharam and VR Gopu.
The husband: Advocate G Krishnakumari.

Case Title:
Sulochana v Anitha & ors
ICR(Mat.A) No.23 of 2025

READ ORDER

Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance

author

Aastha

B.A.LL.B., LL.M., Advocate, Associate Legal Editor

Similar Posts