9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the wife of the karta is entitled to a share at the time of partition on par with her sons in lieu of maintenance? 2. Whether the wife of the karta is entitled to a share towards maintenance when the karta is getting a share at the time of partition with his sons? Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved a joint family comprising I. Markandeya, his two sons, and his wife. Following the acquisition of a property by the government, a memorandum was executed for partition, allocating 1/4th share to each male member and the wife. The Commissioner of Income-tax later contended that, as per the southern school of Mitakshara law, the wife was not entitled to a separate share. The Tribunal, however, referred to relevant case law and concluded that the wife is entitled to maintenance from the karta and her sons, and a provision could be made for her at the time of partition. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the father and two sons, upholding the wife's entitlement to a share for maintenance. Issue 2: The court emphasized that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the wife had a legal right to maintenance from her husband and sons. It was argued that the 1/4th share allotted to the wife was for her maintenance and not excessive. The court noted that there was no evidence presented by the Department to dispute this claim. The court held that the Tribunal's finding that the share was allotted for maintenance and not excessive was a factual determination, leading to a decision in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. In conclusion, the court upheld the wife's entitlement to a share for maintenance as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the allocation of the share to the wife. The judgment favored the assessee, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
