Marriage jewellery as maintenance expense falls outside gift-tax when given by a mother to her unmarried daughter.

Jewellery presented by a mother to her unmarried daughter at marriage was treated as expenditure incidental to the marriage, not a taxable gift. The controlling principle was that a mother's legal obligation of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act extends to reasonable expenses connected with a daughter's marriage. On the facts, the daughter was unable to maintain herself, the jewellery formed part of the mother's existing assets, and the value was considered reasonable in the circumstances. The transfer therefore fell outside the Gift-tax Act, and the related aggregation for the later year could not be sustained on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether jewellery presented by a mother to her daughter at the time of marriage was a gift exigible to gift-tax, or whether it formed part of the mother's legal obligation of maintenance and the reasonable expenses incident to the daughter's marriage, so as to fall outside the Gift-tax Act.

Analysis: The presentation of jewellery at the daughter's marriage was not disputed. The controlling question was whether such presentation had the character of a taxable gift. The statutory obligation under section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 extends to an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself, and the scope of maintenance includes the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage. The Court treated customary marriage presents, when reasonable in quantum, as falling within that obligation. On the facts, the daughter was unmarried and there was no material to show that she could maintain herself. The jewellery given was part of the assessee's existing jewellery, the assessee remained a wealth-tax assessee with substantial jewellery left, and the amount was considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The jewellery given at the marriage was expenditure incidental to the marriage arising from the assessee's legal obligation as mother, and not a gift. It was therefore outside the purview of gift-tax, and the resulting aggregation for the later year also could not survive on that basis.

---