A widow whose husband of 66 years excluded her and their four daughters from his will, and left everything to their two sons, has won a high court case for a share of an estate worth more than £1m.
Mr Justice Peel heard that Karnail Singh, who died in 2021, “wished to leave his estate solely down the male line” after writing his will in 2005. He heard that Harbans Kaur, who married Singh in 1955, estimated the estate to be worth £1.9m gross but one of her sons put the value at £1.2m.
The judge, who heard the family had run a clothing business, ruled Kaur, 83, should get 50% of the net value of the estate. He said it was clear “reasonable provision” had not been made for Kaur, whose income consisted of state benefits of about £12,000.
Peel, who heard the case in the family division of the high court in London, said evidence showed Kaur had played a “full role” in the marriage and worked in the family clothing business. In his ruling, the judge said: “By [a] will, dated 25 June 2005, the estate was left in equal shares to two of the children … the sons of the claimant and the deceased.
“The reason why the will was crafted in these terms, excluding the claimant and the other four siblings, was because the deceased wished to leave his estate solely down the male line.”
He added: “It seems to me that this is the clearest possible case entitling me to conclude that reasonable provision has not been made for the claimant.
“It is hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached.
“After a marriage of 66 years, to which she made a full and equal contribution, and during which all the assets accrued, she is left with next to nothing.”
He said she should “receive 50% of the net value of the estate”.
after newsletter promotion
Heledd Wyn, a partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said the ruling should be a warning. The lawyer said: “This decision is evidence that people cannot simply be cut out of wills, especially spouses which have contributed for a significant number of years.
“The court has been very clear on this matter and has ruled in the interest of fairness.”
