A V LAKSHMAMMA Vs. A SURYANARAYANAMURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of some importance which arises for decision in this appeal can a widow claim maintenance from the persons in possession of her father-in-law's self-acquired estate bequeathed to them under a will? The question arises this way; the suit was laid by the plaintiff (appellant) for partition or, in the alternative, for maintenance, on the allegation that the defendant, her husband's brother is in possession of joint family property. The defendant denied the allegation. According to him, the plaintiff's husband, who pre-deceased his father, bad during his own lifetime demanded partition from bis father, but which claim was immediately denied by the latter. The father had asserted that there was no joint family property or coparcenary property to be dividd between him and the plaintiff's husband and that, the property alleged to be joint family property is his self-acquired and separate property inspite of this specific denial the plaintiff's husband took no steps whatsoever for a period of more than twelve years to establish or enforce his right in the property. The defendant farther contended that the suit property which was the self-acquired property of his father, has been bequeathed to him under a will. For the said reason, he contended, that the plaintiff has no right either to demand a partition or to claim maintenance.

(2.) On a consideration of the, oral and documentary evidence placed before him the learned II Additonal Subordinate Judge, Vijsyawada, held that the property was the self-acquired property of the defendant's father in which the plaintiff's husband had no right, share, or interest and that, the said property has been bequeathed under a will to the defendant. He also found the suit for partition to be barred by limitation. He negatived the plaintiff's claim for maintenance on the ground that, in the circumstances, the defendant is under no legal obligation to provide maintenance to the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.

(3.) No material has been brought to my notice to depart from the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court. I will, therefore, proceed on the footing that the suit property was the self-acquirtd property of the defendant's father, which be has bequeathed under a will, to the defendant. Still the question arises, whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim maintenance against the defendant? Since a preliminary examination of the relevant provision of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 presented some difficulty, I requested Sri J. V. Suryanarayana Rao to assist the Court as amicus curiae, which he has done with his usual ability. I am grateful to him for the assistance.