{"id":2973,"date":"2019-04-07T08:51:28","date_gmt":"2019-04-07T03:21:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/udaen.info\/?p=2973"},"modified":"2019-04-07T08:51:28","modified_gmt":"2019-04-07T03:21:28","slug":"widow-who-remarries-does-not-lose-rights-over-late-husbands-property-case-briefshigh-courts-published-on-july-23-2015by-editor-1-comment-bombay-high-court-in-a-judgment-a-bench-compri","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/udaen.info\/?p=2973","title":{"rendered":"Widow who remarries does not lose rights over late husband\u2019s property CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS Published on July 23, 2015By Editor 1 Comment Bombay High Court: In a judgment, a bench comprising of VM Kanade and CB Colabawalla, JJ has ruled that a widow, even after she has remarried, has the rights over her former husband\u2019s properties. In the present case, the petition was filed by a man against his former sister-in-law who had claimed the right over her deceased husband\u2019s properties after she married another man. The brother of the deceased relied on the provisions of the Hindu Widows\u2019 Re-marriage Act, 1856, which stated the limited right and interest which a widow had in her deceased husband\u2019s property would cease to exist if she remarries without express permission, and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property, shall thereupon succeed to the same. The Court ruled that provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would prevail over the repealed Hindu Widows\u2019 Remarriage Act, 1856. There was no provision in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which was pari materia with section 2 of the Hindu Widows\u2019 Re-Marriage Act, 1856. The Court further observed that even after remarriage she would qualify as Class I heir and the husband\u2019s kin would still be a Class II heir. It was further observed that a woman doesn\u2019t lose rights over her dead husband\u2019s properties \u2013 moveable and immoveable even if she remarries. Sanjay Purshottam Patankar vs. Prajakta Pramnod Patil, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3487, decided on 25th June, 2015 Share this: Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)1Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)1Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)More Related Succession to a Hindu male dying intestate will vest only in the widow excluding the daughters January 16, 2016 In \u201cCase Briefs\u201d Law does not restrict the eldest female coparcener of HUF property from being its Karta February 6, 2016 In \u201cCase Briefs\u201d Gau HC | S.6 of Hindu Succession Act doesn’t apply to Dayabhaga school law; Proviso to S.6 (1) or S.6(5) not applicable in case of fraudulent transaction March 4, 2019 In \u201cCase Briefs\u201d TAGGED WITH: property Avatar Written by Editor Post navigation PREVIOUS STORY Compensation of Rs. 5 lakh awarded for failure of doctors to diagnose foetal anomalies NEXT STORY Necessity for decriminalizing Sections 499 and 500 of IPC (defamation), discussed WE RECOMMEND CASE BRIEFSFOREIGN COURTS Amendment to pleadings should be allowed, if there is no prejudice to the respondent HIGH COURTS Live in relationships comes under the purview of Section 376 IPC CASE BRIEFSTRIBUNALS\/COMMISSIONS\/REGULATORY BODIES Notice issued to Union Home Ministry on allegations of draconian approach over renewal of FCRA license to NGOs of Human Rights Defenders ONE COMMENT Avatar Jaswant bohra Feb 27, 2019 So usefull REPLY JOIN THE DISCUSSION Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked Comment * Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. POPULAR ON SCC ONLINE BLOG CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS Del HC | Conviction for S. 138 NI Act offence reversed where complainant incapable of extending the subject loan CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS Cal HC | Authorised signatory not to be prosecuted under S. 138 NI Act if the company not arraigned as accused CASES REPORTEDSUPREME COURT CASES 2019 SCC Vol. 2 March 7, 2019 Part 4 CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS Chh HC | The three ingredients under S. 107 IPC required to be fulfilled for framing of charge under S. 306 IPC LAW SCHOOL NEWSLIVE BLOGGING The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition \u2013 Live Blog MOST COMMENTED HOT OFF THE PRESSNEWS Rafale Deal: SC reserves order on admissibility of the \u2018leaked\u2019 documents CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS Jha HC | Mere absence of a ticket with the deceased will not negative claim of being a bonafide passenger, Court reiterates LEGISLATION UPDATESNOTIFICATIONS GST | Decisions by GST Council in 34th meeting regarding GST Rate on \u201cReal Estate Sector\u201d CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS Madras HC | Pollachi Rape Case | Court refuses to quash summons issued against Editor of Nakkheeran Publications CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS Del HC | Conviction for S. 138 NI Act offence reversed where complainant incapable of extending the subject loan TAGS #SCC Aadhaar Amendment Anticipatory Bail Appeal Appointment Appointment Of Judges Appointments Arbitration Bail Cases Reported CBI Compensation Conviction Corruption Cruelty Data Protection Divorce Election Evidence FIR Fundamental Rights GNLU GST Human Rights Interpretation Investigation Jurisdiction Maintenance Marriage MoU Murder NHRC Pension Privacy Rape RBI Reservation Right To Information SEBI Section 482 Crpc Sentence Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases Transfer Disclaimer : The content of this Blog are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the personal views of EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause. \u00a9 2018 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. ff notification icon"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Cour<\/span><\/b>t:\u00a0<\/span>In a judgment, a bench comprising of VM Kanade and CB Colabawalla, JJ\u00a0 has ruled that a widow, even after she has remarried, has the rights over her former husband\u2019s properties. In the present case, the petition was filed by a man against his former sister-in-law who had claimed the right over her deceased husband\u2019s properties after she married another man.<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

The brother of the deceased relied\u00a0 on the provisions of the\u00a0 Hindu Widows\u2019 Re-marriage Act, 1856, which stated the limited right and interest which a widow had in her deceased husband\u2019s property would cease to exist if she remarries without express permission, and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property, shall thereupon succeed to the same.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court ruled that provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would prevail over the repealed Hindu Widows\u2019 Remarriage Act, 1856. There was no provision in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which was pari materia with section 2 of the Hindu Widows\u2019 Re-Marriage Act, 1856. The Court further observed that even after remarriage\u00a0 she would qualify as Class I heir and the husband\u2019s kin would still be a Class II heir.\u00a0 It was further observed that a woman doesn\u2019t lose rights over her dead husband\u2019s properties \u2013 moveable and immoveable even if she remarries.\u00a0<\/span>Sanjay Purshottam Patankar vs. Prajakta Pramnod Patil,\u00a0<\/span><\/i>2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3487<\/a>, decided on 25th June, 2015<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:\u00a0In a judgment, a bench comprising of VM Kanade and CB Colabawalla, JJ\u00a0 has ruled that a widow, even after she has remarried, has the rights over her former husband\u2019s properties. In the present case, the petition was filed by a man against his former sister-in-law who had claimed the right over her […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-information"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t