RAM KUMAR DUBE AND ORS Vs. MT BHAGWANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant s appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance. The plaintiff Mt. Bhagwanta is the widow of one Hazari Lal, who died as a member of a joint family consisting of himself and the defendants. In 1906 Mt. Bhagwanta instituted a suit against the defendants for her maintenance, but it was dismissed because the Court found that she had been leading an unchaste life. The plaintiff again filed a fresh suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance in 1929 which has given rise to this appeal. She alleged that since the decision of the former suit by the appellate Court she had been leading a chaste and pure life and was therefore entitled to get maintenance from the defendants. She claimed the same at the rate of Rs.60 per mensem. The defendants resisted the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff had all along been leading an immoral life and was not therefore entitled to any maintenance, that the suit was barred by the rule of res judicata, and that it was also not within limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had been leading a chaste life and was therefore entitled to a bare maintenance from the defendants, which he awarded at the rate of Rs. 15 monthly. The defendants have preferred this appeal against the decree of the Court below. The plaintiff has also filed cross-objections, contending that the rate at which maintenance has been awarded to her is very low. The plaintiff is now about 60 years of age. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that at least for the last 22 or 23 years the plaintiff has been leading a chaste life and has been living in the house of her brother and nephew. This finding of the Court below was not challenged before us by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants.

(2.) The only question which has been argued before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that under the Hindu law a widow who had become unchaste once could not get maintenance allowance from the other members of the joint family, even if she reformed. I proceed to consider this question. The learned Counsel for the appellants had to admit at the very outset that some of the recent decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts were against the contention raised by him. There is however no decision of this Court bearing: on the point. He had contended before us that the Bombay and Madras decisions are not in consonance with the texts of Hindu law and has asked us to hold that on a true interpretation of the texts a Hindu widow who once becomes unchaste loses her right of maintenance even after her reformation. He relies on the following text of Narada which is referred to in Ch. 2, Section 2, pl. 7 of the Mitakshara

(3.) This text is an authority for the proposition that the right of a widow to get maintenance is dependent upon her leading a chaste life. It is now a fairly well-settled proposition that a widow loses her right to the ordinary rate of maintenance if she is leading an impure life; but it is still a debatable question whether such, a widow is not entitled even to a bare or, what is called, "starving maintenance allowance." But the question which we are asked to decide in this case is somewhat different. It is whether a widow who has gone astray once can claim starving allowance after she has given up leading an immoral life. It appears to me that the old texts of Hindu law are silent on this point. The learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to cite any text having a direct bearing on the point in issue before us. It, however, appears that according to some of the texts an unchaste woman would be entitled to a starving maintenance allowance : verse 70 in the Achara Adhayaya in the chapter relating to "marriage", with Vijnaneswara s commentary thereon, is translated as follows by Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava in his translation of the Achara Adhyaya at p. 136: