P. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the claim petitioner in an application filed under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Her contention is that she is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of a property which was subsequently attached in a proceeding initiated by the first respondent for recovery of maintenance from her husband, the fourth respondent.

2. The property in question originally belonged to the husband, who sold it to the claim petitioner prior to the order of attachment. The attachment in the original petition was effected on 14.11.2007, while the original petition itself was decreed in favour of the wife on 12.03.2009. The sale deed in favour of the claim petitioner had been executed earlier, on 16.07.2007. The property purchased by the claim petitioner comprised 5 cents out of the total extent of 11 cents owned by the husband.

3. The Family Court dismissed the claim petition, holding that the wife was entitled to enforce her right of maintenance against the property, as she had a charge over it. In doing so, the court relied on the decision of this Court in Ramankutty Purushothaman v. Amminikutty (AIR 1997 Ker 306).

4. We have heard Sri.S.Balachandran (Kulasekharam), the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.G.Krishnakumari, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/husband.

5. Earlier this court framed the following questions and referred the matter for the consideration of a Full Bench:

                  “(a) Is a Hindu wife entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956?

                  (b) Is there not an apparent conflict between the views expressed in Vijayan v. Sobhana and Others [ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 822], or Sathiyamma v. Gayathri and Others [2013 (3) KHC 322], Nysha v. P.Suresh Babu (MANU/KE/2266/2019) and Hadiya (Minor) v. Shameera M.M. [2025 (3) KHC 131], and what is the correct law?”

6. As per order dated 14/01/2026, the Full Bench has answered the reference in the following lines:

                  “23. In conclusion to the discussions aforesaid, we answer the reference made as follows:

                  (i) A Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

                  (ii) The aforesaid right of the Hindu wife has to be presumed to be in a dormant stage till she initiates legal steps to realise maintenance from her husband and his properties, or till she is deprived of such maintenance due to the death of her husband.

                  (iii) During the above dormant stage of the aforesaid right, the purchasers of the immovable properties belonging to the husband of that Hindu wife cannot be presumed to be having the knowledge of such right for invoking Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or Section 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, if there existed evidence to show that the purchaser, at the time of sale, was aware of denial of maintenance by the seller to his wife and any subsisting claim for maintenance which arose out of such denial, or if there were reasons to show that the transfer was gratuitous, then the wife’s right for maintenance will get the protection and privilege of Section 39 of the T.P Act.

                  (iv) If any such transfer is effected during the period when a legal action, which even include the registered legal notice issued by the wife to her husband, has been initiated for getting maintenance from the husband and his properties; or during the period when she is deprived of such maintenance due to the death of her husband, then the purchaser shall be deemed to be having the knowledge of such right for the purposes of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or Section 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as the case may be

                  (v) The law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan v. Sobhana & Others [ILR 2007(1) Kerala 822] cannot be termed to be one expounding the correct proposition of law insofar as it holds that the wife and children of a Hindu do not have any right to claim maintenance from the profits of the immovable property held by that person.”

7. Sri S. Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that in view of conclusion No. (iv) in the Full Bench decision, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, since the appellant had purchased the property much prior to the initiation of the original petition seeking maintenance. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/husband also supported the said contention. The wife remained absent.

8. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel. The Full Bench has held that a Hindu wife has a right to claim maintenance out of her husband’s property and, consequently, is entitled to the protection under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, if the wife is able to establish that the purchaser had knowledge of her right at the time of purchase, she would be entitled to enforce the decree against him, in view of the statutory provisions contained in Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act. Conclusion (iv) of the judgment deal specifically with the concept of deemed knowledge of the purchaser about the wife's right to get maintenance from her husband’s property and not otherwise. For availing the benefit of deemed knowledge, the conditions stipulated therein must be satisfied. In conclusion (iii) the Full Bench has held,

                  “However, if there existed evidence to show that the purchaser, at the time of sale, was aware of denial of maintenance by the seller to his wife and any subsisting claim for maintenance which arose out of such denial, or if there were reasons to show that the transfer was gratuitous, then the wife’s right for maintenance will get the protection and privilege of Section 39 of the T.P Act.”

                  Therefore, during the dormant stage of the wife’s right, a purchaser cannot be presumed to have knowledge of such a right for the purpose of invoking Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or Section 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, as held by the Full Bench, it is open for the wife to establish actual knowledge on the part of the purchaser that the transfer is fraudulent and intended to defeat her rights.

9. In the present case, since the purchase was effected prior to the filing of the maintenance proceedings, the wife cannot claim the benefit of deemed knowledge on the part of the purchaser regarding her right. It was therefore incumbent upon her to establish that the purchaser had actual knowledge that the transfer was fraudulent to defeat her rights. As the impugned order was passed without considering this aspect, it is liable to be set aside. The parties are to be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence on this issue, and the matter shall thereafter be decided in accordance with the law as settled above.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Family Court is directed to give an opportunity to the first respondent/wife to the extent mentioned above. The appellant shall also be given opportunity to lead evidence, if she is so advised.

                  The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 04/03/2026.