RAJABAI Vs. BHIMRAO RAVAJI EKHANDE AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the original plaintiff Mrs. Rajabai w/o Bhimrao Ekhande in Reg. Civil Suit No. 605 of n the file of the Civil Judge, J. D. Barshi. Though the substantive initially claimed by her were partition of a ⅓rd share, only the alter- relief of enhanced maintenance was awarded by the trial Court. Defendants in the suit arc her husband the 1st defendant, the 2nd wife of defendant, his two daughters and his son-in-law. The trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 100 per month from the date of the suit till -time and created a charge for this amount on- the suit properties. The ants preferred an appeal and the plaintiff filed Cross-objections. The was partly allowed and the maintenance of Rs. 100 per month which amounted to Rs. 1,200 per annum was reduced to Rs. 800 per annum. The objections were rejected, and for the reduced amount of maintenance awarded to the plaintiff the charge was created not on the entire suit properties but only on the property that was left with the 1st defendant after the gift in favour of some of the defendants. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) The defendants have not chosen to file any appeal or cross-objections. The plaintiff's claim for maintenance is unassailable. Plaintiff's former suit king Reg. Civil Suit No. 329 of 1960 for maintenance was decreed and it I ad become final. Under that decree the plaintiff/appellant was granted Rs. 41 per annum by way of maintenance and a charge for that amount ~ created on all the suit properties. The question is whether the maintenance should be enhanced to Rs. 1,800 per annum as claimed by the plaintiff retained at Rs. 100 per month as decreed by the trial Court or at Rs. but reject annum as modified by the appellate Court.

(3.) The decree in the previous Regular Civil Suit No. 329 of 1960. awarding Rs. 400 per annum is dated 22-6-1961. The defendant continue: cultivate all the suit properties. Only lie has alienated certain properties way of gift to his own daughters. All the properties gifted away was to a charge under the earlier maintenance decree. The long passage of time between the earlier decree and the present suit and the change of circumstances fully justify enhanced maintenance being awarded to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff is entitled to claim enhanced maintenance is not disputed even by the defendants for they have not preferred any Cross res-jections. So the only question is as to what extent it should he enhanced.