MANIKKA MUDALIAR Vs. SOUBAGIA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judge has awarded the sum of Rs. 50 per month for maintenance to the plaintiff, who is the widow of a deceased member of a joint Hindu family. The defendants, her husband s brother and brother s sons, appeal.

(2.) It is first contended that the District Judge is wrong in fixing the maintenance with reference to the present income of the family. The major part of the income is derived from the family trade in which the plaintiff s husband took part at the time of his death and which has developed considerably since. The District Judge estimates the present income at Rs. 17,500 a year. It is contended for the appellants that it was not more than Rs. 500 in 1897 when the plaintiff s husband died: and the rate of maintenance should be fixed with reference to that income.

(3.) It is not contended that the property out of which the plaintiff seeks to be maintained is not joint family property; that the defendants did not take her husband s interest by survivorship and that formed in part the nucleus of. this acquisition. It is. also clear that if the family income had been reduced, the plain-.tiff would only get a reduced rate of maintenance and she would not be entitled to have it fixed with reference to the family income at the date of her husband s death, a daughter-in-law may not be entitled to claim any maintenance out of the self-acquired property in the hands of her father-in-law if her husband dies before his father. But she would be entitled to claim it out of the same property after it descends to her brothers-in-law as ancestral property. The character of the property at her husband s death does not therefore always limit her claim. The cases Adhi Bai v. Cursundas Nathu (1886) I.L.R. 11 B. 199 Madhava Rav Keshav Tilak v. Gangabai (1878) I.L.R. 2 B. 639 support the view that the share the husband would get if he had been alive at the time of the suit should be taken into consideration and not the share, if any, he was entitled to on his death. We agree with the decision in Sukan Sahu v. Gangajali (1911) 13 Indian Cases, 136 The decision in Bangaru Ammal v. Vijamachi Beddiar (1898) I.L.R. 22 M., p. 176 that altered circumstances would justify an increased rate of maintenance proceed on the same principle.