Skip to content


Olagayee Vs. Pichammal Alias Avadai Ammal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.524; (1911)21MLJ303
AppellantOlagayee
RespondentPichammal Alias Avadai Ammal and anr.
Cases ReferredRamanandan v. Rangammal
Excerpt:
hindu law - right of wife to residence in family dwelling house--alienation of dwelling house by husband. - - 260. but the courts have never gone so far as to hold that a hindu wife has, during her husband's life-time, a right to reside in the family house like the widows of deceased co-parceners......appellant admits that there is no decision of any high court which has recognised the right of a hindu wife to residence in the particular house in which she and her husband have been living so as to preclude the husband from alienating the house even if he is in a position and willing to provide suitable residence for her in some other house. the decided cases have only recognised the right of widows of co-parceners to right of residence in the family dwelling house and as for the wife of a hindu, she is undoubtedly entitled as against her husband to be provided with suitable residence. it has also been held that the husband cannot alienate all his property so as to defeat the right of maintenance of his wife, and the right of maintenance of hindu females generally has been held to be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The finding now is that the 'other' house referred to by the Subordinate Judge is not a dwelling house. It is, therefore, contended that the 1st defendant, the senior wife, has a right of residence in the family house and the gift in favour of the plaintiff, the junior wife, must be subject to such right. The learned Vakil for the appellant admits that there is no decision of any High Court which has recognised the right of a Hindu wife to residence in the particular house in which she and her husband have been living so as to preclude the husband from alienating the house even if he is in a position and willing to provide suitable residence for her in some other house. The decided cases have only recognised the right of widows of co-parceners to right of residence in the family dwelling house and as for the wife of a Hindu, she is undoubtedly entitled as against her husband to be provided with suitable residence. It has also been held that the husband cannot alienate all his property so as to defeat the right of maintenance of his wife, and the right of maintenance of Hindu females generally has been held to be in the nature of a real right, Ramanadan v. Rangammal 12 MP. 260. But the Courts have never gone so far as to hold that a Hindu wife has, during her husband's life-time, a right to reside in the family house like the widows of deceased co-parceners. We have been referred to a text of Katyayana cited in Ramanandan v. Rangammal 12 MK. 260 which is to this effect: Except his whole estate and his dwelling house what remains after the food and clothing of his family a man may give away whatever it be whether moveable or immoveable; otherwise it may not be given.' It is obvious that the words of the text cannot be taken literally, for if it were so, a Hindu would never be able to alienate his dwelling house even if he had no wife to claim residence nor would he be able to sell articles of clothing, etc. We do not, therefore, feel ourselves called upon on the authority of this text to impose limitations on a Hindu's rights of disposition over his dwelling house other than those already recognised by the Courts.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //