New Delhi, March 10 :     Months before he died, Beni Bai?s husband willed his property to her on the condition that it would be inherited by their son after her death. But Beni Bai was determined to gift the property ? a house ? to her daughter. So far, this was not allowed because the interpretation of law did not recognise that a Hindu widow enjoyed absolute rights over property left behind by her deceased husband. Now, with the Supreme Court acknowledging that she is indeed sole owner of the property, Beni Bai is free to will the house to her daughter if she so wishes. A division bench of the Supreme Court today ruled that Hindu widows are absolute owners of property even if their husbands had willed only ?limited ownership? rights to them. Justices V.N. Khare and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri struck down all restrictions imposed on Hindu widows? rights to property that is left to them in lieu of maintenance. The judges said the right to maintenance is transformed into a full-fledged right under section 14 of the Hindu Women?s Rights to Property Act and provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Setting aside the verdicts of the first and second courts of appeal, the apex court ruled that Beni Bai was ?legally competent to gift the property in favour of her daughter? and upheld the gift deed executed by the widow. ?According to the old Shastric Hindu law,? the judges observed while passing the order, ?marriage between two Hindus is not a contract but a sacrament and after marriage it is a pious obligation on the part of the husband to maintain his wife during lifetime and after his death the widow is to be maintained out of the party.? This principle has been statutorily recognised by various legislations like the Hindu Women?s Rights to Property Act, Hindu Married Women?s Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act and the Hindu Succession Act, the apex court judges said. ?Right to maintenance,? the judges observed, ?was preserved as a pre-existing right.? The judges pointed out: ?After Independence, it was felt necessary to assure the equality of right in property to a Hindu female and to remove the artificial disparity in the right where a male was entitled to obtain full ownership and the female would only be contained by limited ownership because of the restrictions imposed.? The judges said that the ?pre-existing? right of maintenance ?crystallise? into ?full-fledged rights? under the laws.