GHANARAJ Vs. MT. TAPI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiff-respondent sued her step-sons for maintenance and for arrears of maintenance. The learned District Judge in first appeal has granted the plaintiff a decree for maintenance at Rs. 8 per mensem and for Rs. 140 for arrears of maintenance. The appellants urge in second appeal that the amount offered by them was sufficient and that the decree should not have provided for arrears.

(2.) THE main argument put forward is that the appellants are not personally liable to maintain their step-mother. Their father's occupancy tenancy devolved on them but they did not inherit any transferable property. Reliance is placed on Nathmal v. Mt. Mattoo (1913) 9 Nag LR 137, but the decision in that case was based on the terms of Section 50(2), Civil P. C. The legal representative of a judgment-debtor is liable to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and it was held that he was not liable unless the property which could be disposed of for the purpose of satisfying the debt came to his hands. In Bai Dava v. Natha Govindlal (1385) 9 Bom 279, it was held that the obligation to support a step-mother independently of family property should be left to the conscience of each individual. It does not appear that the Judges would have held that no legal obligation existed where the step-sons had obtained by succession to their father nontransferable rights over property. Where the step-sons are in enjoyment of income on account of property which belonged to their father, it seems equitable that they should be legally bound to devote a due proportion of that income to the maintenance of the dependants of their father. I find no reason then why in such circumstances a personal decree should not be passed against the step-sons. The amount of maintenance and the sum awarded for arrears are based on findings of fact and I see no reason to interfere. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed: costs on the appellants.