AYYADEVARA SURYA CHANDRA MOHANLESWARA RAO, MINOR BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN RANGAMMA Vs. AYYADEVARA DURGAMBA ALIAS MAHALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff is the widow of the deceased brother of the 1 defendant's father and she brought this suit for maintenance and obtained a decree. The defendants now appeal.

(2.) When the plaintiff brought her suit originally she ignored the existence of certain documents executed in 1913, Exs. II and IV, whereby her light to maintenance was fixed at Rs. 75 per annum; but after the written statement was filed she amend- . ed her plaint and alleged that these documents were not binding on her and that she was entitled to maintenance at a higher rate. The Subordinate Judge found that the documents of 1913 were not obtained by undue influence and that the plaintiff had executed her counterpart with full knowledge of its contents and effect; but held that the stipulation in that document that she would not claim any higher rate of maintenance in the future was not binding on her apparently because the 1 defendant's father had not similarly undertaken that he would never claim a right to reduce the rate of her maintenance. On this ground he held that the plaintiff was not bound by her agreement.

(3.) The argument advanced by Mr. Ramadas on behalf of the respondent is that in no circumstances can a Hindu widow enter into a valid agreement agreeing to relinquish her right to claim enhanced maintenance in future; but we have been referred by the learned Vakil for the appellant to cases of this Court in which the right of a widow to relinquish her right to enhanced maintenance in the future has been recognised, and in two unreported cases, Appeal No. 12 of 1920 and A. A. O. No. 316 of 1918, it has been definitely held that an agreement by a widow not to claim enhanced maintenance is a binding agreement and must be enforced. The case in Subramania Pattar V/s. Vembammal is not a direct authority, because in that case there was only an agreement to receive maintenance at a certain rate for life and it was there held that that did not amount to a release of the widow's right to increased maintenance in the future; but it is clear from the judgment that the learned Judge recognised the possibility of a widow releasing her right, such a release being binding upon her. As against this Mr. Ramadas has referred us to several cases, not one of which is exactly in point, but which go to show that an agreement or a decree for maintenance at a specific rate is always subject to alteration in the future if the circumstances of the family necessitate such a change, vide Gopi Rabai V/s. Dattawaya ILR 24 B 366, Raja Venka Nayanim Varu V/s. Raja Thimma Nayanim Varii and Bangaru Ammal V/s. Vijayamachi Reddiar ILR 22 M 175. They undoubtedly recognise the fact that an agreement to receive maintenance at a particular rate is not binding for all time; but none of them is authority for holding that, when the agreement goes further and binds the widow not to claim a higher rate even in changed circumstances, it is not binding on her. The cases we have already referred to cited by the appellant are authority to the contrary and we entirely agree with the views therein expressed. In that view, these documents, Exs. II and IV are binding on the plaintiff and she is not entitled to any higher maintenance.