ANIMUTHU Vs. GANDHIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. He had two sons by name Gurusami and raghavan. There was no partition between the defendant and his sons and they constituted Mitakshara Joint Hindu family. Raghavan died sometime in 1960 leaving his widow the first plaintiff and a minor son Ulaganathan who is the second plaintiff in this case. The plaintiffs filed a suit out of which this second appeal arises claiming past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the sum of Rs. 75 claimed by them towards the maintenance was reasonable and accordingly the suit was decreed as prayed for.

(2.) IN this second appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contended that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), the first plaintiff widow is entitled to claim a share in the joint family properties as heir of deceased Raghavan and that she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. On the other hand it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that under S. 19 of the act, the first plaintiff is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law the appellant and that, therefore, she is entitled to the decree for maintenance.

(3.) IT is admitted that there was no partition between the defendant and his two sons during the lifetime of Raghavan and that Raghavan died as a member of mitakshara Hindu joint family. There is also no dispute that there was no partition subsequent to the death of Raghavan and that the defendant-appellant is in possession of the entirety of the coparcenary properties. Thus a substantial question of law arises as to the right of a widow to claim maintenance after the death of her husband from her father-in-law.