BAI MONGHIBAI Vs. BAI NAGUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kanga. It arises out of a suit filed by Bai Nagubai Manglorkar against the executors of the deceased Vasanji Madhavji Thakar, who died on November 21, 1919, possessed of moveable and immoveable property of very large value. The deceased left surviving him a widow and two minor sons. They were also joined as defendants to the suit. It appears that subsequently the sixth defendant who was appointed an administrator pendente lite of the estate of the deceased Vasanji in the testameatary proceedings relating to his will was added as a party. The suit was filed on the basis that the plaintiff was in the exclusive keeping of the deceased Vasanji since the year 1913; and that she had a daughter born to her by him. She alleged that the deceased had left his usual residence at Vadgadi and had come to reside with the plaintiff in her house at Girgaum and that he continued to reside there until the day prior to his death. She claimed maintenance as a Hindu concubine of the deceased who was in his exclusive keeping until his death. She alleged that she used to receive about Rs. 400 per month from the deceased. It was also alleged that a sum of Rs. 25,000 was specially promised by the deceased for the benefit of the daughter, but she reserved the claim to that sum to be made in a different suit. Apparently after the death of the deceased the claim for maintenance out of the estate of the deceased was put forward but as no reply was received from the defendants the suit was filed early in 1920 to claim maintenance of Rs. 500 per month or such other sum as the Court may deem just by way of maintenance out of the estate of the deceased. She also claimed Rs. 800 as arrears of maintenance and also certain allowance during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) The executors filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff to maintenance, and alleging that even if she was otherwise entitled to maintenance her claim could not be allowed on account of her not being chaste.

(3.) The widow on behalf of herself and her minor sons also filed a written statement, pleading that as a matter of fact the deceased did not reside with the plaintiff, and that he had a separate place of residence. They denied that the plaintiff's relation with the said deceased was such as would entitle her to any maintenance under the Hindu law :- At the hearing the following issues were raised :- 1. Whether the plaintiff was in the sole keeping of Vasanji Madhavji before his death ? 2. Whether the said Vasanji Madhavji paid the plaintiff a fixed monthly allowance of Rs. 400 per month prior to his death ? 3. Whether the plaintiff has continued to he chaste after the death of the said Vasanji Madhavji ?