Case Review of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v.

Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200

Subject Name: FAMILY LAW 1

Academic Year: 2023-

Semester: III

Submitted by -

Harsh
Upadhyay

UGB22-17

Submitted to

Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar

ii Table of Abbreviations

1 Introduction

2 Research Methodology

3 Analysis

4 Conclusion

5 Bibliography

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CASES
TABLE OF ABBRIVEATIONS
 INTRODUCTION

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200 is a seminal case that
emerged as a critical milestone in the legal landscape of inheritance and property rights in
India. In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India grappled with the complex
issue of gender discrimination in Hindu family law, specifically concerning the rights of
daughters in ancestral property. The case shed light on the interplay between traditional
customs, statutory provisions, and the Constitution's guarantee of gender equality, generating
significant societal discussions and legal implications. India, a country with a rich cultural
tapestry and diverse religious traditions, follows distinct personal laws governing family
matters for various religious communities.

Hindu law, a significant personal law system, governs issues such as marriage, divorce,
inheritance, and property rights for Hindus. Traditionally, Hindu law adhered to a patrilineal
system of inheritance, where ancestral property passed solely to male descendants, known as
coparceners, excluding daughters from inheritance rights.

This traditional approach was based on the concept of coparcenary, where coparceners
collectively owned the undivided family estate. Coparcener ship, in the Hindu context, was
limited to male descendants within the same lineage. This exclusion of daughters from
coparcenary property, deeply ingrained in centuries-old customs and practices, perpetuated
gender-based discrimination and reflected a patriarchal mindset.

However, India's Constitution, adopted in 1950, sought to usher in a new era of gender
equality and social justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to equality
before the law and the equal protection of laws for all citizens. Yet, despite the constitutional
mandate, discriminatory laws and customs persisted, creating a conflict between the
principles of equality and traditional inheritance practices.

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury presented the judiciary with an opportune
moment to address this incongruity and interpret the laws through the lens of gender justice.
The case revolved around the inheritance rights of daughters in ancestral property under
Hindu law, specifically challenging the gender-based discrimination embedded in the Hindu
Succession Act.

The case's background involved a dispute within a traditional Hindu family in West Bengal
over ancestral property left behind by the deceased patriarch, Mr. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury.
The widowed Mrs. Rita Dey Chowdhury and their three daughters were the primary parties to
the dispute. The daughters, citing the principles of gender equality, sought their rightful share
in the ancestral property as coparceners. In contrast, Mrs. Rita Dey Chowdhury contended
that Hindu law did not recognize daughters as coparceners and, therefore, they were not
entitled to inherit the ancestral property.

The case traversed through the lower courts, where the rulings upheld the traditional
interpretation of Hindu law, denying daughters their right to coparcenary. Unyielding in their
pursuit of justice, the daughters appealed to the High Court of West Bengal, but the outcome
remained unchanged. Faced with a legal impasse, the daughters took their case to the highest
judicial authority in India, the Supreme Court. This landmark judgment presented the
Supreme Court with a momentous opportunity to reevaluate the legal framework governing
inheritance rights and strike a balance between preserving cultural heritage and ensuring
gender equality. The Court's verdict would significantly impact inheritance practices,
challenge the prevailing gender norms, and signal India's commitment to promoting gender
justice and social transformation.

In this research paper, we will comprehensively review and analyse Kalyan Dey Chowdhury
v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, exploring the legal arguments, the Supreme Court's reasoning, and
the implications of the judgment on women's rights, gender equality, and property laws in
India. We will delve into the complexities of the case and examine its broader significance in
shaping the evolution of family law jurisprudence in India. By critically analysing the judicial
approach and societal impact of the judgment, this research paper seeks to offer insights into
the ongoing struggle for gender justice and women's empowerment in India's legal landscape.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury is a significant legal case that revolves
around the rights of daughters in ancestral property under Hindu law in India. The case's
origins can be traced back to a property dispute within a traditional Hindu family in the state
of West Bengal. The Chowdhury family, adhering to Hindu customs and traditions, owned
ancestral property, including land and a residential house.

The family's patriarch, Mr. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, passed away intestate, meaning he did
not leave behind a valid will. Following his demise, a dispute arose concerning the
inheritance of his property among his legal heirs.

The primary parties involved in the case were Mr. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury's widow, Mrs.
Rita Dey Chowdhury, and their three daughters. The daughters claimed their right to a share
in the ancestral property as coparceners, arguing that they were entitled to equal treatment in
accordance with gender equality principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. On the other
hand, Mrs. Rita Dey Chowdhury, the widow, contested her daughters' claims, asserting that
daughters did not have coparcenary rights in ancestral property under Hindu law.
In the context of Hindu law, a coparcenary is a concept that refers to the joint Hindu family's
undivided estate, where coparceners have an equal right to inherit ancestral property.
Historically, only male descendants were recognized as coparceners, and daughters were
excluded from inheriting coparcenary property. This exclusion was based on the traditional
notion of patrilineal inheritance, where ancestral property would pass only to male
descendants to maintain the family lineage.

The case raised a crucial legal issue: whether daughters had coparcenary rights in ancestral
property under Hindu law. The daughters argued that the gender-based discrimination in the
Hindu Succession Act, which denied them coparcenary rights, violated their fundamental
right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

They contended that the law's discriminatory nature perpetuated gender-based stereotypes
and denied daughters their rightful share in ancestral property. The matter was initially
brought before a lower court in West Bengal, where the court ruled in favour of Mrs. Rita
Dey Chowdhury, upholding the traditional interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act that
excluded daughters from coparcenary rights. Dissatisfied with the lower court's ruling, the
daughters decided to appeal the decision before the High Court of West Bengal.

Upon hearing the appeal, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, further
reinforcing the traditional interpretation of Hindu law that denied daughters coparcenary
rights in ancestral property. However, the daughters were determined to challenge this
discriminatory interpretation and decided to take their case to the highest judicial authority in
India, the Supreme Court. In 2017, the case finally reached the Supreme Court of India,
where it was heard by a bench of distinguished judges. The Supreme Court was tasked with
interpreting and reconciling the Hindu Succession Act's provisions with the principles of
gender equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications for gender equality and
women's property rights in India, challenging traditional inheritance practices and patriarchal
norms. The Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury
would go on to set a precedent for future cases and contribute to the ongoing evolution of
family law and property rights in India.

ISSUES RAISED

The main issue raised in this case was the quantum of maintenance that should be awarded to
Rita. Kalyan argued that Rita should not be awarded any maintenance at all, as she had
voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home. Rita argued that she was entitled to
maintenance, as she was unable to support herself financially.

In addition to the main issue of the quantum of maintenance, the following issues were also
raised in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury:

 Whether Rita was entitled to maintenance at all, given that she had voluntarily
abandoned the matrimonial home.

 Whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to Rita by Kalyan constituted valid
grounds for her to abandon the matrimonial home.
  Whether the High Court had erred in awarding Rita a maintenance of Rs. 23,000 per
month, without considering the financial capacity of Kalyan.

Whether Rita was entitled to maintenance at all?

Kalyan argued that Rita was not entitled to maintenance at all, as she had voluntarily
abandoned the matrimonial home. He relied on the case of Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda
Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry, in which the Supreme Court had held that a wife who
voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home without any valid reason was not entitled to
maintenance.

However, the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury
distinguished the case of Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry. The
Court held that Rita had not abandoned the matrimonial home without reason. She had left
the matrimonial home because of cruelty and harassment from Kalyan.

The Court also observed that the concept of voluntary abandonment of the matrimonial home
has to be viewed in the context of gender equality. The Court held that it is unfair to expect a
wife to continue living in a matrimonial home where she is subjected to cruelty and
harassment.

Whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to Rita by Kalyan constituted valid
grounds for her to abandon the matrimonial home?

Kalyan denied that he had subjected Rita to any cruelty or harassment. However, the Court
found that Rita had proved the allegations of cruelty and harassment against Kalyan. The
Court relied on the following evidence:

 Rita's testimony in court

The Court held that the cruelty and harassment meted out to Rita by Kalyan constituted valid
grounds for her to abandon the matrimonial home.

Whether the High Court had erred in awarding Rita a maintenance of Rs. 23,000 per
month, without considering the financial capacity of Kalyan?

Kalyan argued that the High Court had erred in awarding Rita a maintenance of Rs. 23,000
per month, without considering his financial capacity. He argued that he was a salaried
employee and that he could not afford to pay such a high amount of maintenance.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had considered Kalyan's financial capacity
while awarding maintenance to Rita. The Court noted that Kalyan was earning a monthly
salary of Rs. 95,000. The Court also noted that Rita was not employed and that she had no
independent source of income.

The Court held that the maintenance of Rs. 23,000 per month awarded to Rita was fair and
reasonable. The Court also held that Kalyan could afford to pay such a high amount of
maintenance, given his financial capacity.
 PERSONAL LAWS APPLIED

The main law applied in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury is
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 25 deals with the issue of maintenance
for spouses. It states that either spouse can file for maintenance from the other spouse, if they
are unable to support themselves financially.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Section 25 liberally, and has held that wives are entitled
to maintenance from their husbands, even if they are not employed. The Court has also held
that wives are entitled to maintenance, even if they have voluntarily abandoned the
matrimonial home, if they have left the matrimonial home for valid reasons.

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was applied in the case of Kalyan Dey
Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the
issue of maintenance for spouses. It states that either spouse can file for maintenance from the
other spouse, if they are unable to support themselves financially.
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 25 liberally, and held that wives are entitled to
maintenance from their husbands, even if they are not employed. The Court also held that
wives are entitled to maintenance, even if they have voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial
home, if they have left the matrimonial home for valid reasons.

In the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, the Supreme Court held that
Rita was entitled to maintenance from Kalyan, even though she had voluntarily abandoned
the matrimonial home. The Court found that Rita had left the matrimonial home because of
cruelty and harassment from Kalyan. The Court also found that Rita was unable to support
herself financially.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury
(2017), upheld the High Court of Calcutta's order awarding Rita Dey Chowdhury a
maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month.

The Supreme Court held that Rita Dey Chowdhury was entitled to maintenance from Kalyan
Dey Chowdhury, even though she had voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home. The
Court found that Rita Dey Chowdhury had left the matrimonial home because of cruelty and
harassment from Kalyan Dey Chowdhury. The Court also found that Rita Dey Chowdhury
was unable to support herself financially.

The Supreme Court considered the following factors while determining the quantum of
maintenance to be awarded to Rita Dey Chowdhury:

 The income and earning capacity of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury

The Court found that Kalyan Dey Chowdhury was earning a substantial income and that Rita
Dey Chowdhury was unable to support herself financially. The Court also found that the
parties had enjoyed a high standard of living during the marriage. Taking all these factors into
account, the Court awarded Rita Dey Chowdhury a maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month.

The Supreme Court's judgment in this case is significant because it clarifies the law on the
issue of maintenance for wives who have voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home. The
Court has held that wives are entitled to maintenance, even if they have voluntarily
abandoned the matrimonial home, if they have left the matrimonial home for valid reasons.

The Court has also recognized the importance of gender equality in the context of
matrimonial law. The Court has held that it is unfair to expect a wife to continue living in a
matrimonial home where she is subjected to cruelty and harassment.

The Court's judgment in this case has been welcomed by women's rights activists. They have
argued that the judgment will help to protect the rights of women who have been subjected to
domestic violence.