# Kiran Raikwar (Since Died) v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2208 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-20 - **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 1779 of 2025 - **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kiran-raikwar-since-died-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54496 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 2208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 39. The learned Registrar General of this Court shall ensure that the entire record pertaining to this case be scanned and kept for future reference. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 2208 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. Matters Under Article 227 No. 1779 of 2025 Kiran Raikwar (Since Died) ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Issues for Consideration (i) Whether the mother of a deceased divorced daughter is entitled to receive the amount awarded to the daughter under a decree of divorce by mutual consent, where the amount remained deposited before the Family Court and the daughter died before its actual disbursement? (ii) Whether the amount awarded to the wife under a decree passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 forms part of her estate so as to devolve upon her legal heirs under Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? (iii) Whether the application moved by the deceased wife for release of the amount could be continued by her legal representative under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (iv) Whether the Family Court was justified in withholding release of the deposited amount merely because the former husband objected to its disbursement after dissolution of marriage? Headnotes Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 14 and 15 - Divorce by mutual consent - Amount payable to wife under decree - Death before disbursement - Devolution of property. HELD: The amount awarded to a wife under a decree of divorce by mutual consent forms part of her property within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Where the decree does not create a restricted estate within the meaning of Section 14(2), the amount becomes the absolute property of the wife notwithstanding that actual disbursement remained pending. Upon her death intestate before receipt of the amount, succession is governed by Section 15 of the Act. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 15 - Deceased divorced female - Succession - Former husband not an heir. HELD: Upon dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, the status of the spouses as husband and wife comes to an end and the former husband ceases to have any right of inheritance in the property of the divorced wife. Consequently, where the deceased divorced woman dies issueless and without any surviving heir falling within clauses (a) and (b) of Section 15(1), her property devolves upon her parents in terms of clause (c) thereof. Where the mother is the sole surviving parent, she alone is entitled to succeed to such property. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 2(11) and 146 - Legal representative - Estate of deceased - Continuation of proceedings. 4 All. Kiran Raikwar (Since Died) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2209 HELD: Money lying deposited before the Family Court pursuant to a decree in favour of the deceased constitutes part of her estate. The mother, being the legal representative and successor of the deceased, is entitled to represent such estate within the meaning of Section 2(11) CPC. By virtue of Section 146 CPC, the application instituted by the deceased during her lifetime for release of the amount could validly be pursued by her legal representative without instituting independent proceedings. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Decree of divorce by mutual consent - Amount deposited before Family Court - Release after death of wife. HELD: Where the wife had already acquired an enforceable right to receive the amount stipulated under the decree of divorce by mutual consent and had applied for its release during her lifetime, her subsequent death before actual payment does not extinguish such right. The amount continues to remain part of her estate and is liable to be released in favour of her legal representative in accordance with the law of succession. Constitution of India - Article 227 - Family Court - Release of deposited amount - Supervisory jurisdiction. HELD: Where the Family Court withheld release of the amount deposited under the decree solely on account of objections raised by the former husband, despite the petitioner being the sole legal representative of the deceased divorced wife, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, rightly directed release of the amount in favour of the petitioner. Petition allowed. Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda directed to release ₹16,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of the order along with a fresh application. (E-14) Case Law Cited Yallawwa v. Shantavva, (1997) 1 SCC 159 - relied on; V. Tulasamma and Others v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by LRs., (1977) 3 SCC 99 - relied on; Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, (1986) 1 SCC 118 - relied on. List of Acts / Statutes Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian Succession Act, 1925. List of Keywords Divorce by mutual consent; Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act; Property of female Hindu; Devolution of property; Deceased divorced wife; Legal representative; Estate; Release of deposited amount; Family Court. Case Arising From Proceedings arising out of O.S. No. 103 of 2023 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, culminating in the decree dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda dissolving the marriage by mutual consent and directing payment of ₹20,00,000/- to the wife, of which ₹16,00,000/- remained deposited before the Family Court Appearance for Parties For the Appellants: Sri Lal Chandra Mishra and Sri Shashikant Mishra. For the Respondents: Learned Standing Counsel for the State; none appeared for respondent No. 2 despite service. (Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.) 2210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Issue Involved:- Whether mother of a deceased divorced daughter is entitled to receive amount awarded to wife under the decree of divorce. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. By order dated 03.03.2025 notice was issued to respondent no.2. Office report dated 29.11.2025 indicates that notice has been delivered upon the addressee on 07.04.2025. Service of notice upon the respondent no.2 is held to be sufficient. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. 3. This petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court Banda to release a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- (sixteen lakh) in favour of the petitioner who is mother of late Kiran Raikwar, which amount was deposited by the respondent no.2 in O.S. No. 103 of 2023 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition under Section 13-B was filed jointly by the parties to the marriage seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The said petition was decreed by order dated 23.4.2024 and one of the terms of the settlement between the parties was payment of Rs. 20 lakh to the wife, i.e. the petitioner's daughter. 5. Submission is that out of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 20 lakh, a sum of Rs. 4 lakh was paid to the wife, however, remaining sum of Rs. 16 lakh was deposited before the Family Court. It is contended that the wife moved an application dated 24.5.2024 seeking release of amount to her, pursuant to which a cheque of Rs. 16 lakh was prepared by the Family Court on 06.07.2024, however, before the cheque could be issued in her favour, she died on 16.7.2024. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased wife, moved an application in September, 2024 along with affidavit and copy of the death certificate as well as certificate issued by District Magistrate that the petitioner is the only living member in the family and request was made to release the amount in her favour. 7. It is stated that the amount is lying deposited before the concerned Family Court and only on account of an objection filed by respondent no.2, the same has not been released. The court has perused the objections preferred by respondent no.2 in which it is stated that the amount was meant for being paid to wife and for her maintenance and, therefore, mother has no right to receive the same. 8. A significant question has arisen for adjudication by this Court, that is to say that in a case divorce is granted based upon mutual consent subject to payment of certain amount to the wife and if, after the decree is passed but before the amount is received by the divorced wife, she dies, whether legal representative(s) of the deceased divorced wife would be entitled to receive the amount. LAW OF SUCCESSION IN MONEY MATTERS 4 All. Kiran Raikwar (Since Died) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2211 9. The Court may observe that movable and immovable properties owned by either Hindu male or female devolve by succession as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or Indian Succession Act, 1925. Since, in the present case, the amount was awarded in favour of wife and a cheque was also prepared by the Family Court on 06.07.2024 but before it could be paid to the divorced wife, i.e. daughter of the petitioner, she died on 16.07.2024, provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 need reference. The same read as under:- '14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property." (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.?In this sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. 10. A bare perusal of Section 14 indicates that any property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as of limited owner. Explanation to subsection (1) of Section 14 includes in the definition of "property", movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance ..... or in any other manner whatsoever .... However, there is a restriction provided under sub-section (2) of Section 14 to the effect that the provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply to any property where terms of any instrument or decree or order of a civil court or award prescribe a restricted estate in such a property. 11. In the present case, the order passed by the Family Court does not prescribe a restricted estate in the property, i.e. the sum directed to be received by the wife and even if the order passed by the Family Court is read in a sense that the amount to be received by the wife after divorce was meant for her maintenance, although no such specification was made in the order rather qua the amount it was indicated that lump sum payment of money is a condition for grant of decree which includes Stridhana etc., provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act may come in picture which reads as under:- 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.- 2212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,? (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),? (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased(including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.? 12. As per Section 15 of the Act, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the Rules set out in Section 16, (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; .... 13. In the present case, the persons falling in the category of clause (a) and (b) of subsection (1) are not existent, inasmuch as it has come in the order of the Family Court that no issue was born out of wedlock of the parties who were residing separately for the last ten years. Further, since status of the plaintiff-respondent (husband) ceased as such after the decree of divorce was granted, there is no question of devolution of property (money) of the deceased upon any heir of the husband. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 would come into picture and property of the deceased divorced wife would devolve upon her mother and father. The petitioner being a widowed mother, as indicated in the certificate issued by the District Magistrate, no heir was left by the deceased. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 4 All. Kiran Raikwar (Since Died) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2213 15. The matter can be seen from another angle, i.e. in the light of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which defines 'legal representatives' as under:- "2(11) ?legal representative? means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;" 16. Word 'estate' has been defined in 7th edition of Blacks? Law Dictionary as the amount, degree, nature and quality of a person?s interest in land other property. 2. All that a person or entity owns, including both real and personal property. 3. The property that one leaves after death; the collective assets and liabilities of a dead person. 4. A tract of land esp. one affected by an easement." 17. In the opinion of the Court, the money lying deposited before the Family Court and not paid either to the divorced wife who is no more or to the petitioner, is covered by the word "estate" and the petitioner being legal representative/heir of her deceased daughter, would be entitled to receive the same. The principle of "actionable claim" can also be utilized in the present case for the purpose. CONTINUANCE OF CLAIM BY A PERSON CLAIMING UNDER THE ORIGINAL 18. There is a third dimension of this case, which lies under Section 146 CPC, which reads as under:- "146. Proceedings by or against representatives.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him." 19. In view of Section 146, it is clear that where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, such proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. Therefore, if the application moved by the petitioner?s daughter on 24.05.2024 when she was alive, could not materialize in terms of release of payment of Rs. 16 lakh though the cheque was prepared by the Family Court on 06.07.2024, the application could be pursued by the petitioner being her mother in terms of Section 146 CPC and, for that purpose, no other proceedings were required to be instituted. FEW PRECEDENTS TOUCHING THE ISSUE 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yallawwa Vs. Shantavva: (1997) 1 SCC 159 has discussed devolution of interest in the property of a female Hindu as per the Section 15 of the Act, 1956 and has held that in a case where divorce decree is granted, spouses do not remain husband 2214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES and wife and, therefore, the mutual rights of inheritance in each other?s property on the death of either of them get extinguished. The Hon?ble Supreme Court has also discussed the effect of Section 305 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 observing that an executor or administrator has the same power to sue in respect of all causes of action that survive the deceased and may exercise the same power for recovery of debts as the deceased had when living. 21. In V. Tulasamma and others Vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs.: (1977) 3 SCC 99, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in light of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, has held that sub-section (1) of Section 14 is large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu including acquisition in lieu of maintenance and she would become full owner of the same. 22. In Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan Vs. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair: (1986) 1 SCC 118, the Hon?ble Supreme Court, after dealing with the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, has held that rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator and the position must necessarily prevail in the case of legal representative and what applies to the executors and administrators, will also apply to a legal representative. CONCLUSION 23. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 16 lakh lying in the Family Court as a legal representative of her deceased divorced wife and as the only living successor left by her. 24. The petition is allowed and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda is directed to release the amount of Rs. 16 lakh in favour of the petitioner in furtherance of the decree drawn in Suit No. 103 of 2023, within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith a fresh application is filed before him. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 2214 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Matters Under Article 227 No. 3816 of 2026 Hemant Kumar Garg ...Petitioner Versus Pulkit Garg ...Respondent Issues for Consideration