(1.) The point that falls to be considered by the Full Bench is whether the separate property of a widow, which is productive should be taken into account in assessing the quantum of, maintenance to be paid to her.
(2.) The facts necessitating this reference lie in a short compass and are not in dispute. An action was laid by the respondent in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, against her adopted son, the defendant for recovery of maintenance, past and future, from 1-4-1940 at the rate of 80 bags per year and for provision for residence and pilgrimage at Rs. 500.00 each,
(3.) The defence to the suit was that the plaintiff was not entitled to any past maintenance or for any provision for pilgrimages and that future maintenance should be filed only at 12 hags a year as she owned properties yielding large income.