SARASWATI HOTIANI Vs. RUPA HOTIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in a suit brought for maintenance against her step-mother-in-law (defendant No.1) and the alienee (defendant No.2) of a portion of the joint family properties.

(2.) THE following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the parties: Pitabas, husband of the plaintiff predeceased his father on 24-4-38 while in a state of jointness with him. Sidheswar married defendant No.1 after the marriage of the plaintiff with his son Pitabas, presumably in the hope of begetting sons through her but defendant No.1 proved barren. Sidheswar died on 20-6-54 leaving considerable properties in villages Lupurasinght and Khanapali which have now devolved on his surviving widow defendant No.1. Sometime in 1941 the plaintiff filed an application to sue in forma pauperis her father-in-law for maintenance (Ext.A) case No.3 of 1941. While that application was pending, Sidheswar executed a registered deed of maintenance (Ext.A) on 5/8/1941 in her favour agreeing to give her annual maintenance of 12 pusthamos of rice (then valued at Rs.96/-) and cash of Rs.96/-per annum, and also making the aforesaid maintenance a charge on the properties described in the deed. Soon after the execution of the deed the plaintiff did not press her pauper application and allowed it to be dismissed for default. THE present suit was brought on 11-2-1955 within eight months after the death of Sidheswar.

(3.) THE enhanced maintenance as directed above shall be payable from the date of institution of the suit namely 11/2/1955 following the principles laid down in 9 Suth .W.R.152 and also reiterated in AIR 1947 Oudh 150.