A High Court judge who ruled that an 83-year-old widow should get a fair share of her late husband’s £1 million-plus estate despite being left out of a will has opened a door for others, a lawyer has said.

Karnail Singh left everything to his two sons and nothing to widow Harbans Kaur, his wife of 66 years, or his four daughters, Mr Justice Peel was told.

The judge heard that Mr Singh, who died in 2021, “wished to leave his estate solely down the male line”.

Mrs Kaur, who lives in the West Midlands, had taken legal action and Mr Justice Peel ruled earlier this week that she should get 50% of the net value of Mr Singh’s estate.

Lawyer Jessika Bhatti, who is based at Meadows Ryan Solicitors, and represented Mrs Kaur, said on Thursday that an injustice had been overturned.

“I feel privileged to be a part of an injustice made right,” Ms Bhatti told the PA News agency.

“This judgment has opened the door to many other families and individuals who find themselves in similar circumstances.

“The case will now act as a precedent to ensure the most vulnerable individuals seek justice at the earliest opportunity without enduring the unpleasantries of a trial.”

Ms Bhatti said there was “no conceivable argument” that financial provision should not have been made for Mrs Kaur.

She added: “My client’s age, ill health and acute financial needs were the driving force behind this case, and it is with great honour that our legal system was able to overturn an injustice.”

Mr Justice Peel had outlined detail of his decision in a written ruling after considering evidence at a recent hearing in the Family Division of the High Court, at the Royal Courts of Justice complex, in London.

He heard that Mrs Kaur estimated the estate to be worth £1.9 million gross but that one of her sons put the value at £1.2 million.

The judge, who heard the family had run a clothing business, said it was clear that “reasonable provision” had not been made for Mrs Kaur, whose income consisted of state benefits of around £12,000.

Ms Bhatti said: “We invited the court to conclude that the claim is a clear-cut case for which there is a palpable obligation on the part of the deceased to make a provision for his wife.

“He failed to do this and there is no conceivable argument that a financial provision should not be made for her.

“His Honourable Mr Justice Peel gave careful consideration and concluded it is just and reasonable for the case not to be prolonged and instead appropriate for summary disposal.”