VEGESINA NARAYANAMMA Vs. VEGESINA NARASARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur, dismissing her suit O.S. No. 93 of 1953 for recovery of maintenance. The plaintiff is the second wife of the first defendant, defendants 2 to 4 are the sons by the first wife, the 5th defendant is her son, the 6th defendant is the Court-auction purchaser of C Schedule properties, and the 7th defendant is the Receiver in the partition suit filed by son, the 5th defendant, as against her husband, the first defendant. The suit was instituted for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per year. She also claimed arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 8,900. A sum of Rs. 200 was claimed for utensils. A charge was asked for in regard to the two-thirds share of defendants 1 to 4 in the joint family properties. The Court below found that the first defendant was not guilty of cruelty and abandonment and that the plaintiff was consequently not entitled to claim separate maintenance. On Issues 2 to 4, the learned Subordinate Judge found that if the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance a sum of Rs. 50 per month might be awarded to her. He also held that if she is entitled to maintenance, a charge might be created on the first defendant's share of A and B Schedule properties. The plaintiff has consequently preferred the appeal to this Court.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (LXXVIII of 1956) was passed. Section 4 (a) provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in the Act. Under section 4 (b) it is enacted that any other law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act. Section 18 (1) which applies to the facts of this case, is in the following terms :

(3.) The terms of the section are quite clear that if there is any other wife living, the second wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. This view was taken by a Bench of this Court in Jaggamma v. Satyanarayanamurthi, (1957) 2 An. W.R. 520. The learned Judges held that the words " any other wife living " in clause (d) of section 18 are words of wide connotation and include wives except the one claiming relief and cannot be limited to any particular wife. The view taken by the Punjab High Court in Ram Parkash v. Savitri Devi , A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 87. is contrary to the view taken by this Court. We follow the decision of this Court in preference to that decision. The language of the section is also quite clear and supports the view taken by us. The plaintiff will consequently be entitled to claim maintenance from the date of the passing of the Act, i. e., 21st December, 1956.