9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further appeal, the Tribunal held that the claim for deduction of maintenance made by the accountable person had been rightly negatived. By a subsequent rectification order, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the accountable person regarding the deduction of the estate duty in computing the principal value of the estate, relying upon the decision in V. Pramila v. CED [1975] 99 ITR 221 (Kar). In this reference, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the accountable person, the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction of maintenance allowance claimed by the deceased's widow, is not permissible while computing the dutiable estate of the deceased? 2. Whether, on the facts -and in the circumstances of the case, the estate duty payable by the accountable person is deductible in computing the principal value of the estate of the deceased ? " In support of this reference, learned counsel for the accountable person first contended that the accountable person, even during the lifetime of the deceased, had two rights: (i) relating to maintenan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the property of the husband. The right of the wife to be maintained by her husband and the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife would not by themselves create any charge or encumbrance over the properties of the husband. The right to receive maintenance is one which is not of a very definite character unless and until it is made a charge upon the property, but is otherwise enforceable like any other liability in respect of which no charge exists. On the facts of this case, there was no anterior fixation or fastening of any liability on the husband for the maintenance of his wife during his lifetime either by a decree of court or by the creation of a charge over any property of the husband and it cannot, therefore, be said that what passed on the death of the deceased was the property less the right of maintenance. We may also consider this question with reference to the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Under section 4 of the Act which came into force on December 21, 1956, long prior to the date of the death of the deceased on June 21, 1973, overriding effect is given to the provisions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that on the death of the husband, the obligation to maintain the widow is statutorily imposed on her father-in-law under section 19(1) of the Act, subject to the limitations contained in the proviso therein and in sub-section (2) and on the other heirs, under section 22(1). Section 19(1) has no application in this case. However, by reason of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, -the accountable person, as class I heir, had inherited the properties of her husband. Even on the assumption that the accountable person had some sort of statutory right to be maintained by her husband or the father-in-law or the other heirs, either as wife, widow or as a dependant, just one moment after the death of her husband, when the property passed, the accountable person had inherited the entire properties of her husband, as class I heir under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and that in turn would attract section 22(3) of the Act, so that statutorily the right to maintenance claimed by the accountable person stood extinguished. Thus, during the lifetime of the husband, the right to maintenance claimed by the wife had not taken the shape of definite liability and it cannot, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and other provisions, cannot be viewed on the same footing. The decision relied on was rendered on the basis that the provision for the marriage of a daughter of the deceased can be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, as it is a debt for which the law imposes a liability on the ancestral properties, which the deceased died possessed of. claim for deduction from the dutiable estate of the right of maintenance, as we have in this case, governed by the statutory provisions, referred to earlier, was not considered there. Besides, in that decision, the liability to provide for the marriage expenses of an unmarried daughter was characterised as one referable to an imposition in that regard by the Hindu law. However, under section 21(v) of the Act, an unmarried daughter, so long as she remains unmarried, would be a dependant and the expression it maintenance " with reference to her would include reasonable expenses of and incidental to her marriage, by reason of section 3(b)(ii) of the Act and if she had obtained a share in the estate of her father under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the operation of section 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
