6 Maintenance Uncorporating the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 (78 of 1956)]! Introduction.—The right of maintenance arises from the concept of an undivided family. The head of such a family is bound to maintain its members, their wives and their children, All members of a joint family, whatever be their status and whatever be ther age, are entitled to maintenance, A text of Manu cited in the Mitakshara and the Parasara Madhavya lays down, “It is declared by Manu that the aged mother and father, the chaste wife, and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds.”? Under Hindu law, a person has personal obligation to maintain his wife, children and aged and infirm parents, It arises from the very nature of the relationship and exists whether he po S property or not, What is maintenance ?—I1 is a right to get the necessities which are reasonable. Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 defines maintenance. According to it maintenance includes—(i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment, (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage. It does not rest upon contract. It is a liability created by Hindu Law and arises out of jural relations of the parties.* The obligation to maintain besides being statutory in nature is also personal in the sense that it arises from the very existence of the relationship between parent and the child. The obligation is absolute in terms and does not depend on the means of the father or the mother. NATURE AND EXTENT OF RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE PRE-ACT LAW Two-fold liability for maintenance.—Under Hindu Law the liability of a Hindu to maintain others arises in some cases from the mere relationship between the parties, independently of the possession of any property. In other cases, it depends altogether on the possession of property.* The first liability may be called personal liability or absolute liability or liability on account of relationship, and the second is liability limited by the possession of ancestral or other property. 1. The Act received the assent of the President on December 21, 1956 and therefore it shall be deemed to have come into force on that date: aft sera per ser sacadte i wal 3. State of Haryana v. Smt, Santra, AIR 2000 SC 1888. 4. Savitri Bai v. Laxmi Bai, (1978) 2 Bom 573. (131)132 HINDU LAW Under the law, persons entitled to maintenance have been divided into Wo sharp distinct lasses, the first being those who are bound to be maintained by a person during his lifetime, the liability arising from the relationship, status and affinity, existing between the persons entitled and the persons liable, The second class consists of those persons whose claims rest upon property and passing of it on the death of the owner thereof. These persons are entitled to be maintained by the heirs of the deceased and the liability of the heirs is in proportion to the net property inherited. (A) Personal Liability or Absolute Liability.—The obligation of a Hindy to maintain his relations is personal in character and arises trom the very existence of the relation between the parties.’ According to the pre-Act law a Hindu was under a legal obligation to maintain his— Q) wife, @) minor sons, (3) unmarried daughters, and (4) aged parents. Thus, the only persons who are under a personal obligation to maintain others are (the father, who is bound to maintain his minor sons and unmarried daughters: (2) the hushand who is bound to maintain his wife; (3) the son who is bound to maintain his aged parents. ‘The Act has not brought about any change in this respect except that the illegitimate daughter and widowed daughter-in-law have also to be maintained by the father and father-in-law, respectively with certain conditions laid down in the Act. It is clear from what has been stated above that a Hindu is not under personal obligation to maintain his (1) adult sons, (2) grand-children, (3) his sister, (4) his sister- in-law, ‘The liability to maintain the above persons may arise from possession of property. (B) Limited Liability—tis heading may be sub-divided into three parts according to liability of different persons to maintain others : (® Liability of manager in a joint Hindu family—Liability, dependent on possession of coparcenary property. (Liability of heits—Liability, dependent on possession of inherited property. Gii) Liability of the Government. (@ Liability of Manager—Mitakshara law.—The manager of a Hindu joint family govemed by Mitakshara law is under a legal obligation to maintain all male members of the family, their wives and their children.® On the death of any one of the male members he is bound to maintain the deceased’s widow and children.? The obligation to maintain ‘5S. Bhagwan Singh v. Mst. Kewal Kaur, AIR 1927 Lah 208 : 9 : 6. Savitri Bai v. Laxmi Bai, (1887) 2 Bom 573. ae 7. Vaikuntam v. Kallapiram, 23 Mad $12: Cheruny v. He i ~ i 1 Sectcasaneamparambill, AIR 1940 Mad $30, see ManuMAINTENANCE, 133 these persons arises from the fact that the manager is in possession of the {amily property. Dayabhaga law.—Under Dayabhaga law also, the manager of the Hindu joint family is under a legal obligation to maintain all the male members, their wives and children out of the. coparcenary property. A father is under a personal obligation to maintain his minor sons under both the laws. But where the father as a manager has ancestral property in his hand, and if the case is governed by the Mitakshara School, sons even if adult, are entitled to maintenance out of the ancestral property. It is not so if the case is governed by Dayabhaga law because under that law sons do not acquire by birth any interest in ancestral property. (ii) Liability of heirs.—A heir is legally bound to provide, out of the estate which descends to him, maintenance for those persons whom the late proprietor was le; morally bound to maintain because the estate is inherited subject to the obligation | provide for such maintenance.® Mlustrations (i) X dies leaving a widow Y and a father Z. He leaves no property. Is Z under any obligation to maintain his destitute daughter-in-law Y ?Z is only under a moral obligation to maintain Y and so he can refuse to maintain. But if Z dies leaving his widow B and on Z's death, B inherits his estate as his heir, B now comes under legal obligation to maintain Y out of the estate, she being a person whom Z was morally bound to maintain.? A Hindu is under no personal obligation to maintain his sister, but if he inherits his father’s estate he is bound to maintain out of that estate, she being a person whom his father was bound to maintain as his daughter, provided she is unmarried. '° (iii) Liability of the Government.—The obligation to maintain extends even to the Government when the Government takes estate by forfeiture or escheat. Persons entitled to maintenance.—According to Hindu Law a member of the family is entitled either to a share in the ancestral property or maintenance out of the income of that property. The following persons are entitled to such maintenance as enumerated in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and as mentioned in pure (old) Hindu Law : I. Wife. Tl. Widowed daughter-in-law. III. Children and aged parents. IV. Dependants of the deceased :— (1) his or her father, 8. Khetramani v. Kashi Nath, (1892) 2 Beng LRAC 15 (FB): Kamini v. Chandra, 17 Cal 373: Bai Dave» ‘Natha, 9 Bom 279: Narbada Bai v. Mahadeo, 5 Bom 99: Audimina v. Veradareddi, AIR 1948 Mad 802 Bai Kaupu v. Bai Jadar, 8 Bom 15 9, Jaki v. Nandram, \\ Alld 194; Rajni Kant Pal v. Sanji Soundrea Dasie, 61 Cal 221: Rangammal v Ecchammal, 22 Mad 305; Ganga Devi v. Jagannath, 22 Luck. 518. 10. Mst. Gulab Koonwar v. Collector of Benaras, 4 MIA 246.134 HINDU LAW (2) his or her mother, (3) his widow, (4) his or her son, son of pre-deceased son, or son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son (5) his or her unmarried daughters, or the unmarried daughter of pre-deceased son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son, (6) his widowed daughter, (7) widow of his son or a son of pre-deceased son, (8) his minor illegitimate son, (9) his unmarried illegitimate daughter.!! Unless adequate grounds are shown for inferring that the person entitled has waived or abandoned the claim to maintenance, the person bound to pay maintenance cannot escape liability.!!" It may be noted here that Sections 21 and 22 of the Act do not in any way abridge the pre-existing rights of the maintenance-holders and these provisions under the Act are Prospective and apply only to the estate of Hindu whose death takes place at the commencement of the Act. Though sisters do not find place in the list of dependants in Section 21, it would not deprive the sister of getting her maintenance from her brother Out of the property left by her father where she does not inherit the property from her father as an heir.'? Changes made by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.—The Act has made the following changes in the law relating to maintenance « (1) An illegitimate daughter is entitled to claim maintenance (Sections 21 and 22). (2) A female Hindu is also made liable for maintenance of her relations (Sections 20 and 21). (3) Several persons have been included in the list of dependants under Section 21. Overriding effect of the Act—Section 4 of the Act provides that in all matters dealt with in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall apply. Any text, rule, or interpretation of Hindu Law or any Custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act. It has further been declared that any Other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as i nsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. In this connection, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that Section 4 (b) of the Act does not repeal or affect in any manner the provisions of Section Note. Relations referred to in lists 1 to 1V are mentioned in Sections 18 to 21 f the Hi and Maintenance Aci. 1956, After the passing of the Act, the following are not enitied to (3) wives of disqualified heirs, (4) sisters, (5) Ghar Jamai. Ua. Srinivasa v. Laksluni, AIR 1928 Mad. 216, 12. Rambai v. Meenabai, AIR 1967 MP 86.MAINTENANCE 13s 488, Cr. P.C,, 1898.!° There is no inconsistency between this Act and Section 488 (old) Cr. P.C, Both can stand together. The scope of the two laws is different, This Act is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to adoption and maintenance among Hindus. Sections 125 and 126, Cr, P.C., 1973, provide a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and have no relationship with the personal law of the parties. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE UNDER THE HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 (A) Maintenance of Wife Discussion of this topic may be divided in two groups : (1) Maintenance ; and (2) Separate Residence. Maintenance.—Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, deals with the maintenance and separate residence of a wife, Prior to this Act the Hindu Married Women’s Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946, was in force but this Act has now been repealed by Section 29 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Pre-Act law.—Every male Hindu was under a legal obligation to maintain his wife, The obligation to maintain the wife existed independently of the possession of property, ancestral or separate, i.e., it was a personal liability.!* It does not form any charge on property but where he had property, the same could be charged with the burden of maintenance." The maintenance of a wife by the husband was a personal obligation upon him arising from the existence of the relationship.'® A wife living apart from the husband without justifying cause was not entitled to claim maintenance as she was guilty of breach of her marital duty to him.'7 It is true that on marriage a husband becomes both legally and morally bound to maintain his wife and to provide her with a suitable place of residence according to his status and circumstances but the widow had no charge on any property belonging to the husband if a charge had not been created either by a court of law or under a proper decree executed by the husband. If the husband in his lifetime had transferred the residential house by way of mortgage to a third person, the widow could not claim that she had a right to reside in the house and proceed to enforce her right which was a personal right against the husband, not against the mortgagee.'* Position under the Act.—The right of a wife for maintenance is an incidence of the status or state of matrimony and a Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his 13, Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore, AIR 1970 SC 446, (Section 488, Cr.P.C., 1898 corresponds to Sees 125, 126 of the present Cr. P, Code, 1973.) 14. Narbada Bai v. Mahadeo, § Bom, 99; Savitri Bai v. Laxmi Bai, 2 Bom. 37; Jayanti v. Alameli, 27 Mud 15 ; Appi Bai v. Khai, (1936) 60 Bom. 485; Laxmi Ammal v. Narayanaswami, AIR 1980 Mad. §21, ‘Commissioner of Income-tax v, Laxmipathi, AIR 1956 Pat. 313. 15. AIR 1927 Mad. $02. 16, AIR 1927 Mad. 1187, 1. 31 Mad. 238, 18. Sarwati Mst. v. Kali Shanker, 1954 ALS 645 (FB).136 HINDU LAW wife. The obligation to maintain the wife is personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relation between the parties. Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, substantially reiterates that right and lays down the general rule that a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. The rule laid down under Section 18, cannot, however, be absolute although the right exists independently of the Possession of any property by the husband, ancestral or self-acquired. Section 18 reads as under : “(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,!9 a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime; @) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance : (i) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to Say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or Against her wish, or wilfully neglecting her: (ii) if he has treated her with Such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (iii) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy; (iv) if he has any other wife living; (v) if he keeps a Concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (vi) if he has ceased to be Hindu by conversion to another religion; (vii) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately. (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be another religion.” Application of the Section.—Under Section 18 (1) of the Act, married woman, irrespective of the date of marriage, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband and this obligation on her husband will continue throughout the life of the wife. The right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband is her Personal right ‘against her husband and it arises irrespective of the fact whether the husband hae got any Property either ancestral or self-acquired. A wife entitled to be maintained out of the profits of her husband’s property and under the ¢: of Property Act, can enforce her right against the Properties in the hands of the alienee with notice of her claim.?! It follows, therefore, that the wife’s right being a personal right she cannot follow her husband’s property in the hands of a transferee for valuable Consideration in order to enforce her right of maintenance, nor can she enforce her clan, against the Government when her husband’s property i a Hindu by conversion to a Hindu 19. Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, 20. Jayant v. Almala, (1924) 27 Mad. 34. 21. Chandramma v. Maniam Venkatareddi, AIR 1958 AP 396, 22, See Charu v. Crown, (1929) 10 Lah. 265; Secs. 87 and 88 of old Cr. P.C.rae MAINTENANCE 137 The expression ‘Hindu wife’ in Section 18 has given rise to a controversy and a question whether the wives under void marriages would also be able to claim mainten tinder Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, The question was raised C Obula Konda Reddi v. C, Pedda Venkata Lakshmma,?® where the court held that the in Section 18 cannot be interpreted to mean only a wife whose a -ording to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Hindu wife Contemplated by Section. 18 means a wife whose marriage is solemnized, though void f under Hindu Marriage Act. She will therefore be entitled to claim maintenance from the husband. in words ‘Hindu wi arriage is valid a In Ramchandra Behera v, Smt, Snehalata Dei,® the Ovissa H. C. has declared that ina suit for maintenance which is contested, the court has no power to award interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Section 18 does not authorize the award of interim maintenance pending decision on the claim to maintenance in the suit in contest. The right of wife to be maintained by the husband should not be confused with the powers of the court to award interim maintenance pending an action for maintenance where such right is in dispute. But in Shivankutty v. 'S. Kamal Kumari,5 the Kerala High Court held that it depends upon the discretion of the court to grant interim maintenance in favour of the wife once the relationship as husband and wife is established between them. In Purusottam Mahakud v. Annapurna Mahakud,”® the Orissa High Court held that it is a settled law that the Civil Court had got inherent jurisdiction to award interim maintenance. Conditions under which wife may claim maintenance.—There is no absolute right vested in Hindu wife to be maintained by her husband. This maintenance is dependant on her living with him and discharging the duties as wife. The wife will also be entitled to claim maintenance while living separately from her husband, if any of the conditions laid down in Section 18 (2) is fulfilled. She is entitled to maintenance so far as she is a Hindu and chaste. Effect of husband ceasing to be Hindu.—The husband would not be absolved from his liability to maintain his wife simply because he has ceased to be Hindu, But, sub-section (3) of Section 18 takes away the right of wife to claim maintenance under this Act if she ceases to be Hindu by conversion to another religion. ‘The effect of husband ceasing to be Hindu would be that the wife would be entitled to separate residence and to her claim for maintenance.2” Liability of other relations to maintain her during husband's lifetime.—A wife is not entitled during her husband’ lifetime to be maintained either by her relations or by her husband’s relations, even if she has been deserted by him unless they have in their possession property belonging to her husband.?* 23. AIR 1976 AP.43, 24, AIR 1977 Orissa 96; Suresh Khullar v. Vijay Khullar, AIR 2002 Del 373 25. AIR 1989 Ker 124, 26. AIR (1997) Oni 73 27. Mana v. Jiwan, 6 Alld 617; see also Section 18 (3) of the Act. 28. Rama Bai v. Trimbak, | Bom, HC 283.138 HINDU LAW RIGHT OF SEPARATE RESIDENCE What is in the rule.—A wife's first duty to her husband is to submit herself obediently to his authority and to remain under his roof and protection.”9 As a rule a wife hic ot entitled to separate residence from her husband, unless she proves that by reasons of his misconduct or refusal to maintain her in his own place of residence or Other justifying Cause, she is compelled to live apart from him.30 Exceptions to the Rule.—Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act witha nnes the contingencies in which a wife may live separately from her husband Without forfeiting her right of maintenance. Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Section 18 (2) lays down the grounds for claiming separate residence and maintenance. husband as has been held in large number of cases, Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, however, lays down the circumstances in which a wife may live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance. The law relating to the claim of al than bY @ wife while living separately from her husband is substantially the same al through, though such a right got the statutory recognition for the frece time in the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946, According to Narada “itis a crime in both, if they desert each other or if they persist in mutual alterations, except in the case of adultery by a guarded wife.” It is further said that he who abandons an affectionate wife “shall be brought to this duty by the King with severe chastisement.” Yajnavalkaya says : “He who forsakes wife though obedient to his commands, diligent in household management, mother of an excellent son and speaking kindly, shall be compelled to pay one-third of his wealth or if poor, to provide maintenance for that Set According to Manu, “Married women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers and brothers, by their husbands, if they seck abundant prosperity,” ‘Thus the husband is bound to give his wife the security and comfort of his house and she is entitled to the society and protection of her husband. If neither of these is Present and if cohabitation which is the first object of marriage fails, separation is the only expedient method which can be resorted to. Burden of proof.—Where the wife Claims separate residence, the burden lies upon her to show the special circumstance, [i.e., grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 18 (2) of the Act] which entitle her to a separate residence. So in order to claim 29, Simath v. Haimabutty, 24 WR 367. Pr po Sidava. (1878) 2 Mad. 684; Nitya v. Soondaree, | WR 475; A i 30. Sic ingappa ire: re papi Bai v. Khim; 31, AIR 1986 Oni. 184.MAINTENANCE, 139 The grounds which will enable the wif s et . as noababe pm 0 live separately and claim maintenance 1, Desertion by the husband Cruelty by husband. Husband suffering from virulent form of leprosy. . Husband having another wife living. Husband keeping a concubine. .. Where husband ceased to be Hindu by conversion 7. Other justifying cause. (1) Desertion by the husband [Section 18 (2)(a)].—Desertion has been dealt in detail in the chapter of marriage. According to several judicial decisions, there can be desertion by the husband even though the wife and the husband are living in the same a that there can be desertion if the husband has no reasonable cause for leaving wife. Ina case of desertion, the wife has to prove the following facts : (1) That the husband has abandoned her, (2) That he has done so (a) without any reasonable cause, (b) without her consent, or (c) against her wish; (3) That he is guilty of wilfully neglecting her. Generally speaking desertion begins when the factum of separation of husband and wife is completed with the intention to bring the marital relationship permanently to an end? What constitute desertion 3—In Purushottam Kewalia v. Smt. Devki,** it was laid down that the offence of desertion commences when the fact of separation and the animus deserendi co-exist but it is not necessary that they should commence at the same time. The de facto separation may have commenced without the necessary animus or it may be that the separation and the animus deserendi coincide in point of time. Where a husband brings a prostitute in the house in which his wife is living and as a consequence the wife has to leave the house, the husband is guilty of desertion.* In Neelam Singh v. Vijaya Narain Singh,} the husband was a bank-manager but was not keeping his wife with him and also not providing her comforts of life which he should according to his social and financial status. The wife was compelled to live in village. The Allahabad High Court held that it amounted deserting the wife within the meaning of section 18(2) (a) of this Act and while living separately the wife would be entitled to maintenance (Rs. 1000 p.m,).What amounts to desertion in a particular case, depends upon the circumstances and the mode of life of the parties. But there can be no doubt that an active withdrawal from Awervn > 32. Pankajinidas v. Hrushikesh, AIR 1986, On. 184. 33. For detailed study, see this topic in the preceding chapter. 34. AIR 1973 Raj. 3. 35. Rai v. Ramniga Naik, AIR 1954 Mad. 54. 36. AIR (1995) All. 214.140 HINDU LAW cohabitation, and breaking off of the mantal relations is an indication of en inteainon oi the husband to forsake his wife. Where the husband is employed in some service and does not keep his wife with him, such de facto separation of the hushand due to exigencies of his employment ma Sufficient to attract Section 18 (2) (a). [Section 18 (200). —Crucity may be sard to To cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, danger.MAINTENANCE 141 to legal cruelty. In such case it would not be unreasonable to hold that the wife may legitimately apprehend that if she goes to her husband, there will be repetition of such conduct which may result in a complete breakdown of her health, Where evidence of hysical violence is not per se sufficient to warrant a finding of cruelty, the Court is bound to take into consideration the general conduct of the husband towards the wife The question of cruelty must be determined from the whole facts and matrimonial relations between spouses. It is to be judged on the basis of the evidence on record and the totality of the circumstances of the case. A solitary incident of cruelty or an isolated lapse of tongue would, however, not be sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of cruelty ‘The respondent must be shown to have committed the act of imputed cruelty “persistently or repeatedly.” The term ‘cruelty’ has not been defined. However the conduct complained of should be so grave and weighty that wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with the husband. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. A few stray incidents indicating a short tempered nature and somewhat erratic behaviour are not sufficient to constitute curelty.4 Where husband’s conduct causes disgrace to wife and subjects her to annoyance and indignity, it amounts to legal cruelty. (3) Husband suffering from virulent form of leprosy [Section 18 (2)(c).—A Hindu wife is entitled to separate residence and maintenance on the ground that her husband is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy. This clause deals with the virulent form of leprosy. The emphasis has been given on the words “virulent form”. It would be much better if leprosy alone would have been made a ground for the wife to live separately from her husband without specifying the words “virulent form of leprosy”. Whether leprosy is malignant, virulent or merely 1n its initial stage, there is always danger for the wife being infected with it. Any disease other than leprosy does not fall under this ground and even mere affliction of leprosy will not do. Leprosy to be ground for separate maintenance must be of a virulent type in the sense of a repulsive character, making the man afflicted unfit for cial intercourse. To compel a wife to be in his company is abhorrent to anybody and hence this provision is made. (4) Husband having another wife living [Section 18 (2)(d)].— Section 18, sub-section (1) of this Act clearly lays down that the provisions for riaintenance of wife would apply in cases whether the marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Act of 1956. Clause (d) of Section 18 (2) entitles the wife to claim separate maintenance and residence where her husband has another wife living. ‘This right would not accrue to the wife if the marriage was a void marriage since under the provisions of the Act, the right to separate maintenance would accrue only if the second marriage was a good marriage. In a case B was the first and C was the second wife of one A. B claimed separate maintenance from A. Held that B is entitled (0 separate maintenance only if second marriage between A and C was a valid one-** 43. Neera, Smt. v. Kishan Swarup, AIR 1975 Alld. 337. 44, Nirmala v. Manohar Shivaram, AIR 1991 Bom. 259. 45, Saraswathamma v. Bhadramma, AIR 1970 Mys. 157.142 HINDU LAW The intention of the Act is to cure an existing evil and to afford married woman a remedy for separate residence and maintenance against a twice married man, whether such marriage took place before or after the Act; provided it continued on the date of the suit, In Subbe Gauda Homnamma,‘® the Karnataka High Court has held that the expression ‘another wife living’ signifies legally married wife. In the case of a voidable marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Acct, it is well settled that the marriage is valid until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. In such cases there can be no doubt that the second wife is also entitled to claim the right under this seciion. \ Where the wife is living separately on the ground that the husband has married another wife and that he is living with that wife she would be justified in claiming maintenance without fulfilling the marital obligations.47 A second marriage after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. is clearly prohibited, and therefore, subsequently married wife will be deemed to be a concubine which will be an additional ground for separate residence and maintenance. Se far as regards marriages before the Act, the existence of a second wife may, under this clause, be made a ground for enforcing the wife's right to separate reeidence and maintenance.¥ The claim is maintainable irrespective of the fact that the other marriage had taken place after or before the marriage of the applicant wife” In Reon Prakash v. ‘olive separately and can claim maintenance under existing provision (5) Husband keeping a concubine [Section 18 (2)(e)]—To claim faparate residence and maintenance on this ground, itis necessary for a wife to Prove the following — (© that her husband keeps a concubine; and (ii) that the concubine lives in the same house in which the married wife lives; or that the husband habitually resides with the concubine elsewhere. It should be noted that keeping of a concubine should denot not a casual act of prostitution. A concubine is a woman in the keeping of a man though not married to him, ie some permanent and Permanent and exclusive man, though he might not have changed his ordinary place of residence 46. AIR 1984 Karn. 41. 47. Bhagwati Ammal v. Sethu, AIR 1987 Mad, 224. 48. Shashimukhi v. Brindaban, AIR 1939 Orissa 13: Pra. 582 49. Mulla : Principles of Hindu Law, Ed. VI reprint 1994) p, 905, 50. AIR (1958) Puny. 87. 51. AIR (1975) Bom. 115 1975 2 Jagamma v. Satvanaravuna Murti, AIR 1958 AndhMAINTENANCE 143 (6) Where husband ceased to be Hindu by conversion [Section 18(2)(£)].—A wife is entitled to maintenance and separate residence where her husband abandons Hinduism. But it should be remembered that the mere fact that a man ceases to be Hindu by religion would not itself break the Hindu marriage. In these circumstances. the wife ny Ped Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claim dissolution of e by a decree $s mmringe eh uaeseae! Editors or treat the marriage as subsisting and claim separate Under Section 24 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, no person shall be entitled to claim maintenance if he or she has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. Thus the rights of the wife to claim maintenance and separate residence from her husband under this clause, would continue only so long as she remains Hindu. Section 18 (3) also disentitles the wife to separate maintenance and residence if she ceases to be Hindu by conversion to another religion. Mlustration A and B are husband and wife respectively. A converts to other religion and becomes a Muslim. Now B shall have the right to claim maintenance and separate residence, under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of this Act. But where B also ceases to be Hindu by conversion, her right to claim maintenance and separate residence from her husband would cease to exist. In the opinion of the learned Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee, Section 18 (2)(f), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act has classified the husbands into two classes—(a) husbands continuing to be Hindu and (b) husbands ceasing to be Hindu and has discriminated the latter by subjecting them to the penalty to provide maintenance and separate residence to their wives. Such discrimination, is, in his opinion, based solely on the ground of religion and is, therefore, violative of Article 15 of the Constitution. (7) Other justifying cause. —This is a residual clause and empowers the court to give a Hindu wife such relief which she may be entitled to in those cases which do not specifically fall under any of the above clauses. The language of this residual clause is undoubtedly very wide and is designedly intended to take various circumstances in relation to the particular case before the court which may be joint from the point of wife to live separately from husband. At the same time itis intended that the advantage not be taken generally ofthe language to claim aright of separate residence and maintenance merely on the ground of domestic bickerings or in compatibility of temperament or minor differences as are not unusual in the married lives of parties, if nothing more serious is alleged Devala says : or an heretical mendicant or impotent or long been absent in foreign countries.” But in claiming separate residence and maintenance a Hindu wife must satisfy that she has a justifying cause which compelled her to leave her husband and live separately. “A husband may be forsaken by his wife if he be an abandoned sinner degraded or afflicted with syphilis or if he has ESS 52. Boramma v. Dharmappa, AIR 1969 Mys. 17. 53. Hindu Law and the Constitution Second Edition p. 141. Se. phancharvamma ¥. Saryanarayam, AIR 1950 Mad 359; Dwarka Bai v. Mainan Mathews, AIR 1953 Mad'792.144 HINDU LAW ‘The question in each case would be whether the conduct of the husband was such, that the f-respect and with due regard to her position as a wife can wife consistently with her live in the house of husband.* Where the wife in compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights went and stayed with the husband for about 19 days and it was clear from the evidence that her presence was resented and cold reception was accorded to her and it was brought home to her that she was unwanted wife, it was held that they were justifiable circumstances for the wife declining to live in his house and suffer in silence to the detriment to her health.5* It may be noted, however, that a Hindu married woman is not entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is (1) unchaste, (2) ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.—Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with maintenance pendente lite during the proceedings between a husband and wife, while Section 25 of this Act deals with Permanent maintenance to be fixed at the time of passing any decree or ‘subsequent thereto. But in case of maintenance pendente lite, the same cannot be refused on the ground of allegations in the pleading of the parties, To go into such allegations would clearly introduce extraneous considerations of amount to prejudging the main issue. Thus refusal of maintenance pendente lite on the ground of alleged infidelity of wife would not be proper. Maintenance under this section is also not to be affected on the ground that there was a compromise decree charging the husband's property for life-long maintenance of the deserted wife.‘? Maintenance under the Present section is a confirmed right of wife, which she can claim as a wife although without fulfilling marital rights. The only consideration for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is whether the Party has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessar 'y expenses of the proceedings. Maintenance after the decreé.—Either the husband or the wife may, at the close of any proceedings (referred to above) apply to the court for an order requiring the opposite party to pay to the applicant a maintenance for his or her lifetime or till such time the applicant does not re-marry. Interim Relief.—Unlike the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not authorize and empower any court to pass an order for payment of litigation expenses and maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings. The court can pass an order under the Act for payment of Permanent alimony and maintenance at the conclusion of the proceedings only.‘ There being no specific provision in the Act for interim relief, the court may resort to its inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C. to give interim relief if the circumstances of the case so Tequire and the court is satisfied that thereby it tends to promote the ends of justice.5? 55. Mallawa Siddappa ¥. Bhimappa, AIR.1937 Bom 112, 56. Kamla Bai v. Rahnavelu, AIR 1965 Mad 88, 57. Rundiabala Roy v. Pumtubala, AIR (1985) Cal, 47, 58. Saudagar Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur, in 79 PLR 506, 59 Shanti Sarvop v. Ms. Usha Devi, 19 149; Jvaiben Samir Pawar v. Samir : AIR 2001 8168 var v. Samir Bhaskarrao Pawar,MAINTENANCE ntum i i Quealé a ie pormeneat alimony and maintenance.—Before awardin, ac permancal sia y and maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act the court must costes thea ie a 2—(1) Income and other property of the applicant, (2) oposite OE ee aed other propery, (3) Conduct ofthe paris. (4) The ; st. necessary, secured by the charge on the immovable property of the pees iain et be ; ees = marines ms ee status Gi ioe aspen which is determinative of quantum d 1 wife. jusband is wealthy and leading opulent life, per eee on Parlor ia his prosperity and live with same carts and A maintenance of desi i ee a rae of deserted wives coming to the court, the court is 145 Power to rescind the maintenance ord. ler.—Under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the courts have got sufficient power to modify or rescind the order, if the court is satisfied that— (® There is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after the court has made an order under sub-section (1). (i) The party to whom the maintenance was allowed has married. (iii) In case the wife was awarded maintenance, if she has become unchaste. (v) If such party is the husbard he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock. In Govinda Rao v. Anandi Bai,' the Bombay High Court has said that assuming that under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a right to claim maintenance is conferred only on a lawfully married Hindu wife, it does not follow that the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act would be inconsistent therewith. Moreover, it is not as if a wider construction of Section 25 (1) would render the provisions of Section 18 redundant. Section 18 (1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act entitles a Hindu wife to claim maintenance even without filing any petition for nullity or divorce or judicial separation whereas Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not confer any such right. Where the respondent has been granted maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, she is no more legally entitled to claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.®? Maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.—Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the provision for maintegance of wives, children and parents irrespective of the religion of the parties. In Nagendra Natikar v. Neelamma,* the Supreme Court observed that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. This section is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though they are governed by the provision of this Code. The order made under Section 125 of the Code is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a 60. Meenu Chopra v. Deepak Chopra, AIR 2002 Del. 131 61. AIR 1976 Bom 483. = eee y. Jyoshnarani Mohanty, AUR 2002 Ori. 182. ‘Mosanty 62a. AIR 2013 SC 1541146 HINDU LAW civil Cour. The Court held that Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act provides that any agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a Court of law and such agreement is void, since the object is unlawful. Proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18 (2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act Wife when not entitled to separate residence and mainte- nance.—The circumstances under which a Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance may be enumerated as under :— (1) When she ceases to be Hindu by conversion. (2) When she is unchaste. (3) When she is living separate without any cause justifying the same. (4) When the separate living is by agreement between the husband and wife and wife forfeits her claim for maintenance. Section 18 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, has mentioned only two grounds (1) and (2) disentitling the wife to claim separate residence and maintenance. Other grounds arose out of judicial pronouncements made by various High Courts. These grounds too, it is submitted wili disentitle the wife to claim separate residence and maintenance if there is nothing inconsistent with the provisions of the Asif, (1) Ceasing to be Hindu.—Section 18 (3) of the Act clearly lays down that a Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance when she ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. As soon as she ceases to be Hindu, she forfeits her right of separate maintenance. Cessation from Hinduism would not arise from loss of caste or a lapse from orthodoxy; cessation under this sub-section would arise only if she is converted to another religion. (2) Unchastity—Meaning.—if the wife is living in adultery and persists in that course she would be deemed to be unchaste. Effect of unchastity.—If the wife is unchaste or is living apart from her husband’s family for immoral or improper purposes. she is not entitled to maintenance. Her right to maintenance is conditional upon her leading a life of chastity.°° She forfeits her right by unchaste conduct though it is secured by a decree or agreement. So a mere single act of adultery does not amount to unchastity, But if she persists in that course she is unchaste ‘An unchaste wife at the date of suit is disqualified even for bare maintenance. Under the old Hindu Law a Hindu wife could not be absolutely abandoned bya husband, if ‘she was leading an unchaste life, he (husband) was bound to keep her in the house under restraint and provide her with food and raiment just sufficient to support her life, she was not entitled to any other right.®” Under old Hindu law, if the wife repented and performed expiatory rites, she acquired the right of bare maintenance from her husband. But if she did not return to purity, her right of maintenance was lost.* 63. Kerry Kolitanee v. Mone Ram, (1873) WR 367. 64, Bhagwan Kaur v. Bose, 31 Cal 11 (PC). 65. Hata v. Nurayana, | Mad. HC 372; Debi Saran v. Daulata, 39 All 934; See also Section 18 (3) of the ‘Act. 66, AIR 1917 All, 86: 15 ALJ 169, 67, Paremiv. Mahadevi, 34 Bom. 278. ©8. Paremiv. Mahadevi, 34 Bom 278: Satyabhama v. Keshawa, 32 Mad, 278,148 HINDU LAW were not affected by the question whether the late husband of the widow was separate or joint.?5 Will or gift-property by father-in-law.—Tf the father-in-law bequeathed by vill or gifted-away his self-acquired property, then’the daughter-in-law, even though the devise or donee, be also the next heir of the father-in-law. ‘The liability to maintain the widowed daugher-in-law was neither personal nor legal,” but was only moral and was dependent upon the possession of property (ID) Law under the present Act.—Section 19 of the Act enacts the old rule of Hindu Law subject to certain modifications made by the Act. Under this section a widowed daugher-in-law is entitled to be maintained by the father-in-law under the circumstances mentioned in the section. Section 19 runs as follows :— “(1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained, after the death of her husband, by her father-in-law : Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance— (a) from the estate of her husband or father or mother; or (b) from the son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. (2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not the means to do so, from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share and any such obligation shall cease on the remarriage of the daughter-in-law.” Right when cannot be claimed.—A widowed daughter-in-law cannot claim the right of maintenance— (@) if she is able to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property; or (b) if she is able to obtain maintenance from the estate of her husband; or (0) if she is able to 0 (@) if she is able to obtain maintenance from the estate of her moth: (6) if she is able to obtain maintenance from her son; or maintenance from the estate of her father; or (f) if she is able to obtain maintenance from her daughter; or (g) if she is able to obtain maintenance from the estate of her son; or (A) if she is able to obtain maintenance from the estate of her daughter ; or (0) if the father-in-law has n& coparcenary property in his i of which she has not obtained a share ; or r ate. (D if she has remarried ; or (b) if she has ceased to be Hindu by conversion to some other religion, In Raj Kishore Mishra v. Meena Mishra,”” it was held by Allahabad High Court that under section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, one of the conditions for father-in-law to maintain the daughter-in-law is that the daughter- 75. Appavu Udayan v, Nailammal, 1948 MWN 95. 76. Rupa Mst. v. Mst. Sriyabari, AIR 1955 Orissa 28, 77. AIR 1995 Alld. 70,= MAINTENANCE 149 maintain herself from the estate of her parents. Where, from the estate of the parents, the daughter-in-law can maintain herself, question of obligation of father-in-law does not arise. The-proviso-(a):to Section 19 (1) creates a personal right in favour of the widowed daughter against her father during his lifetime. Any property given in lieu thereof, during his lifetime or given to her after the father's lifetime would certainly fall under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that being in lieu of a pre-existing right during the father’s lifetime.” Applicability of the section —The benefit of the right conferred by this section has been conferred on al! daughters-in-law whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, and whether she became a widow, before or after the commencement of the Act. But the right under this section will accrue from the date when the Act, has come into force. It is clear from the section that this section only deals with the right of daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from father-in-law. This presupposes that widow's husband predeceased her father-in-law. It is implicit in the rule laid dowm in this section that a daughter-in-law whose husband is alive has no right, moral or legal, to claim maintenance from her father-in-law. (C) Maintenance of aged, infirm Parents and the Children Section 20, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, reads as follows;— "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. (2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor. (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property . Explanation— In this section "parent" includes a childless step-mother.” (1) legitimate son.—Under the old Hindu law, only father was bound to maintain his children but under the Act not merely father but mother is also under a legal obligation to maintain children. As the law now stands, son whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether adopted or natural born can claim maintenance from either of his parents till he attains majority under the provisions of this Act. The liability is personal and is not dependent on the possession of property and would cease with the death of the Hindu liable to maintain An important case has been decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D Krishna Prasad Rao v. Jayasri_ and others” where the court held the liability of the parents to maintain their children is an absolute liability which cannot be circumvented on the ground that such duty arises only if the child surrenders to the protection and care of the parent such conditions cannot be imposed in awarding maintenance. The parent can 78. Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1908. 79. AAR, 1986 AP, 17.150 HINDU LAW only defeat the claim on the ground that there . BS ae ae her pan fia maintaining the child or that te claim for maintenance is unreal in the sense thay, action was brought preventing the parent to maintain that child taken out of his cystoy and protection. (11) Daughter ani Law, was bound to maintat were entitled to be maintained out of his estat if ' musi for the maintenance of illegitimate daughter,*! but they were entitled to claim maintenance under Section 488. Cr. P. C. Under Hindu Law an illegitimate daughter wa, not entitled to maintenance from the estate of her putative father which had descended his legal heirs.? According to this Act, daughter whether legitimate or illegitimate both can claim maintenance from their parents (i, both father and mother). But the obligation of parent to maintain major unmarried daughters would arise only if the daughters arc unable to maintain themselves by their own separate earnings and property d Mlegitimate daughter. father. under the old Hing, ‘in his unmarried daughters. On the death of their father, the, c.§9 There was no provision in Hindu Lay, Daughter can claim maintenance from her parents so long as she is unmarried. Sub section (3) of Section 20, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act gives statutory recognition to the rule under the prior law that a Hindu male or female is under « obligation to maintain his or her unmarried daughter regardless of age so long as she 1s not able to maintain herself. In Chandra Kishore v. Nanak Chana,8} Delhi High Court has held that th: obligation of a Hindu father includes the obligation to maintain unmarried daughter not only for purpose of her day to day expenses but also in respect of reasonable expenses oi her marriage. Thus a Hindu is obliged to meet marriage expenses of his daughter whethe: there is a joint family property or not. In Balwant Kaur y. Chanan Singh, the Supreme Court held that a destitute widowed daughter who has no income of her own or no estate of her husband to fall back upon for maintenance, can legitimately claim maintenance from her father both duriny his lifetime and against his estate after his death. Under the proviso to Section 19 (1) o! the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act the words used are “(a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother” and they mean that she has a right—apant from the rizhts she has against the estate of her husband—a personal right against her father or mother during their respective life. (II) Aged and infirm parents._The section casts a liability on the son and the daughter to maintain their aged and infirm parents, who are unable to maintain themselves out of their own property and earnings. Under the old Hindu Law a son was under a Iegal obligation to maintain his aged parents.85 Now this liability has been imposed upon the daughter also, probably because under Hindu Succession Act. 1956. LRG ANZ ee St. Bai Mangal v. Rukhmini. 23 Bom 291. Tulsha v. Gopal Ray, 0 82. Villlaiyappa v. Natarajan, (1927) 50 Mad 340. a. 9 AN 632 3. AIR 1975. Delhi 175, $4 AIR 2000 SC 1908. ’ 5 Padmava ¥. Ram Chandra, AIR 1951 Orissa 245,MAINTENANCE 151 daughter has also been given share in the property of the father, Grand-father or grandmother do not come under the word "parent." In Pikhruraveg v. Piker Chinnah,* the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the responsibility to maintain ones real mother or adoptive mother arises from the rejationship itself and is not dependent upon the fact of getting ancestral property. One may get share in the ancestral property or not, one is bound to maintain his mother, real or adoptive. The words “unable to maintain himself or herself” are not confined to physical inability but include pecuniary inability.*” They mean inability to earn a complete livelihood as an adult.** It has already been said that the person claiming maintenance must be a Hindu.*” Scope of Section 20 (1) and (3).—Under the Act the burden is on the father or mother to show that he or she stands discharged from his or her liability to pay maintenance to the unmarried daughter as the latter is able to maintain himself or herself or out of his or her own earnings or other property. The first part of sub-section (3) imposes in most unequivocal terms an obligation on the father or mother regarding their unmarried daughter or infirm parents. It is, therefore, for the father or mother to establish that his or her case falls under the proviso. It does not seem to be the intention of the Act that a presumption of ability to earn and maintain herself should in the case of a Hindu girl, be raised from her bodily health or age alone.% In Inder Mal v. Babu Lal" the Rajasthan High Court has declared that grant of maintenance allowance is for preserving the existence of an individual who is not able to support himself. Though there is no express provision in the Act for grant of interim maintenance allowance, there is also no prohibition against granting such relief. The power to grant such interim allowance is implicit, ancillary and necessary corollary to the power to entertain a suit and pass final orders. Thus the court has the inherent power to grant such interim allowance in suitable cases. The grant of interim relief does not in any way prejudice the substantial right of the parties. (D) MAINTENANCE OF DEPENDANTS Section 21 of the Act deals with the right of dependants of the deceased to claim maintenance from the heirs of the deceased. Section 21 of the Act defines dependants as follows : For the purposes of this Chapter “dependants” mean the following relatives of the deceased ; (i) his or her father, (ii) his or her mother; (iii) his widow, so long as she does not remarry; 86. AIR 1970 AP 190, 87, Chaman v. Mathu, 39 Mad 95. 86. Baran Shanta vy. Machan The May, 2 Rang 682. 49. Section 24 of the Act. Su Waliram ¥ Mukhtar Kaur, AIR 1969 Pun), 285, 94 AIR 1977 Raj 160.152 HINDU LAW (iv) his or her son or the son of his pre-deceased son, or the son of a pre-deceased son of his pre-deceased son, so long as he is a minor : provided and to the extent that he is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grandson from his father’s or mother’s estate, and in the case of a great-grandson, from the estate of his father or mother or father’s father or father's mother; + 80 (v) his or her unmarried daughter, or the unmarried daughter of his pre-decea son or the unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son of his pre-deceased so long as she remains unmarried : provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grand-daughter from her father’s or mother’s estate and in the case of a great grand-daughter from the estate of her father or mother or father’s father or father's mother; (vi) his widowed daughter : provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance ; (@ from the estate of her husband; or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate; or (©) from her father-in-law or his father or the estate of either of them; (vii) any widow of his son or of a son of his pre-deceased son, so long as she does Rot re-marry : provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain Maintenance from her husband's estate, or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate, or in the case of a grandson's widow, also from her father: in. law's estate; (viii) his or her minor illegitimate son, so long as he remains a minor; (@) his or her minor illegitimate daughter, so long as she remains unmarried. Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act gives a list of persons whom a Hindu is bound to maintain in case he has inherited some property from a deceased to whom such persons are related whether by blood or by marriage. Some of the names are of those persons already enumerated in Sections 18 to 21 but in the former sections right to be maintained was a right arising from relationship, while in the section the right arises from the property inherited. So this will come under the category of limited liability. Under this section the right of dependants is based on the obligation of heirs to maintain certain relations of the deceased. Section 21 (vi) and Section 22 (2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 deal with the right of maintenance accruing to the widowed daughter after the death of her father. As per Section 21 clause (vi), if the deceased has left behind him his widowed daughter then provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband's estate, or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate: or from her father-in-law or his father or the estate of either of them, then such widowed daughter is to be treated as a “dependant” of the deceased, Who are dependants This section enumerates a list of dependants and they are Such persons, whom the deceased was legally or morally bound to maintain personally 92. Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh, AUR 2000 SC 1908,MAINTENANCE uss (h) AMY WRHOW GF a seer of his @® (1) So bong as she does predeceased sam not marry; 2) w the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her— (@ husband's esate: (@) from her son. if amy, or bs estate, (ii) her daughter, if any, or her estate; (iv) her father-in-law's estate. 8. Minor illegitimate son 8. So long as he remains a minor. . Megitimate daughter 9, So long as she remains unmamed, son.—Acconding to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. as it stood ete ie esc cera ened women er estate, though at the time of his conception his mother was a marted woman, her Husband was alive and her connection with the putative father was adulterous. Under this ‘Act the right of such a son to maintenance is not affected.°* Section 21 does not im any way abridge the pro-existing rights of maintenance of a sister from her brother who received her father's estate.** Maintenance ef dependants.—Section 22 provides for the quantum and the conditions under which the maintenance of the dependants would determine. It runs as Hollows = ww ‘Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the heirs of a deceased Hindu are hound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inhented by ‘them from the deceased. (2) Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary oF intestate succession, ‘share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate, (8) The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) oF sub-section (3), no person who is, himself or herself a dependant shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance af others, if he or she has obtamed a share or part the value ‘of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, becomes ON Gapnada Raw v- Nidharamnant, AUR 1965 SC 1970 04 Ramadi ¥, Afeeratbati, AUR 1967 MP 86,156 HINDU LAW less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.” Temay be noted that this section lays down that an heir who has inherited an estate Or any Part of it from the deceased, will be liable to maintain certain persons under certain conditions. Section 22 of the Act sets out the principle for computing the amount of maintenance. When liability t0 maintenance arises ?—Under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act the dependants of the deceased are entitled to be maintained by the heirs of the to the share which they get as heirs. The expression ‘heirs’ in thie section includes all Persons on whom the estate has devolved upon intestacy as well as under a testamentary instrument. testament in favour of the dependant. Section 22 (2) underscores Pre-existing right of maintenance in favour of the “dependant” qua the estate of the Hindu.95 Sub-section (2) covers cases of those of the dependants of a Person who die after the Passing of this Act, (Le., 21st December, 1956) whe do nee su enforceable to that extent, In Ramabai y. Meerabai,% it Was held that Secti 25. Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1908, 96° AIR 1967 MP 86; Subhun Rao v. Parvathi Bai. AIR 2002 Kama 134MAINTENANCE 157 father as an heir. The settled position of law is that an heir is legally bound to provide, ‘out of the estate which descends to him, maintenance for those persons whom the late proprietor was legally or morally bound to maintain, Other persons entitled to maintenance under Prior law.—Besides the persons entitled to maintenance under this Act, there are certain others who before the passing of this Act were entitled to maintenance. These were : (1). Disqualified heirs and their wives—Wherever a son or other heir was excluded from inheritance by reason of disability, such as, blindness, lunacy, idiocy. leprosy, etc., he was entitled to maintenance for himself and his family out of the property which he would have inherited but for the disability.’” Since Section 28 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has removed these disqualifications and laid down that ‘No person shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity or save as provided in shis Act, on any other ground whatsoever, there is no provision in this Act for the maintenance of such handicapped persons. This ‘Act does not provide for maintenance of such persons. Q) Concubine or Avarudh Stree—Meaning of —The literal translation of ‘Avarudh Stree is “protected ot confined woman.” It really applies to woman, Kept permanently by a person in his house as confined under his own protection in a manner as to make it impossible for her to have connection with a stranger.® The English expression “continuously kept concubine” is the closest approach to the meaning of Avarudh Stree and connotes open residence and avowed connection with the man. The woman in order to come within the definition of the word “Avarudh Stree” must be a concubine living under a man’s immediate protection and control. The connection should not be secret but the evidence must show that she lived with the man openly as a member of his family. Under the pre-Act Law a concubine could not claim maintenance from her paramour during his lifetime, because the latter could discard her at any time. But after his death, if she was faithful to him till his death, she acquired a right of maintenance as against his estate, whether ancestral or self-acquired. A concubine's right of maintenance was conditional on her chastity. Present Law.—The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (Act 78 of 1956) does bine. So the right of concubine to maintenance | not provide for the maintenance of concu must be deemed to have been abrogated. @) Ghar Jamai—Prior to the Act Ghar Jamai had some tight to claim maintenance from his father-in-law. This Act does not mention about the right of Ghar Jamai. Now he has no right to claim maintenance Amount of Maintenance.—No fixed rule can be laid down as 10 the amount of maintenance which each claimant is to have. Each case is to be judged according to the —eeeEEEe 97. Yashvant Rau v. Kashi Bai, 12 Bom. 26. 8. Akku Prahlad v. Ganesh Prasad, AIR 1945 Bom. 216 (FB): Al. 314, ‘shiv Kumari v, Udaya Pratab, AIR 1947ll EEE lhl tse HINDU LAW ‘es. Maintenance depends upon the totality of all the facts. the estate, the past life of married parties, a survey of the conditions and nd rights of the members, on a reasonable view of change of circumstances. had to the scale and the mode of living ature of its eircumst amount of fr hecessities possibly required in future, regard being, of cours sind to the age, habits, wants and class of life of the parties.” A wife who has agreed to receive maintenance at a particular rate, binding herself not to claim a higher rate, even if circumstances were to change, can make an application for the increase of maintenance if she can prove or justify under Section 23. It has been held by the Madras High Court that the right under this section supersedes any contract to the contrary. The fact that the rate of maintenance was fixed by a compromise decree makes no difference.' ‘The income from the husband’s estate forms the upper limit for fixing the quantum of maintenance. However it is not necessary that the maintenance should be fixed, equal ‘o the income from the husband’s estate. The court has to determine first what the widow would need for maintaining herself in such reasonable comfort as she would have been maintained while her husband was living.? In Kulbhusan v, Kumari, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that the quantum of maintenance depends upon a gathering together of all the facts of the situation, the amount of free estate, the past life of the married parties and the families, a survey of the conditions and necessities and rights of the members on a reasonable view of change of circumstances possibly required in the future, regard being, of course, had to the scale and mode of living and to the age, habits, wants and class of life of the parties. Section 23 (2) makes no departure from these Principles as enunciated in Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar,* except pethaps to a limited extent envisaged in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of Section 23 (2). Section 23 of the Act deals with amount of maintenance which a person is entitled to. The section vests the court with the discretion to determine the amount of maintenance to be paid and to refuse to award maintenance if it so thinks fit. The discretion so conferred by the section is required to be exercised having regard to the considerations set forth in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 23. Provisions of Section 23 of the Act are given below : (1) It shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this Act, and in doing so the court shall have due regard to the considerations set out in Sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, so far as they are applicable, (2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to wife, children or aged or infirm parents under this Act, regard shall be had to— (i) the position and status of the parties; (it) the reasonable wants of the claimant; 99. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar, 56 1A 182 (PC); AIR 1929 PC 128 1. Shashi Ammal v. Thaiyu Ammal, AIR. 1961 Mad. 217 2. Goburdhan v. Gangabai, AIR 1964 MP 68; Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar, AIR 1929 PC 138 3. AIR 1971 SC 234. 4. AIR 1929 PC 128: 56 1A 182 (PC)MAINTENAN' 159 (iii) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing 80; (iv) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant’s own earnings or from any other source: (v) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act. (3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a dependant under this Act, regard shall be had to— (the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of his debts; (id) the provision, if any made under a will of the deceased in res| dependant; (iii) the degree of relationship between the two: (iv) the reasonable wants of the dependant; (») the past relations between the dependant and the deceased (vi) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived from such property, or from his or her earnings or from any other source; .d to maintenance under this Act. ct of the (vii) the number of dependants entitles Section 23 provides that fixation of the quantum of maintenance shall be in the discretion of the court but while exercising such discretion the court shall have due regard to the factors which have been enumerated in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of the section, as the case may be. 1. Different sets of considerations for different classes of persons—Diferent sets of considerations are laid down for the two categories of maintenance holders. The considerations applicable to a wife, children or aged or infirm parents are set out in sub- section (2) while those for dependants are set out in sub-section (3). Most of the clauses in both the two sets of considerations are ‘identical and others are overlapping, The court has been given the discretion to determine the question of maintenance having regard to the considerations set forth in the two sub-scctions. Although under Section 19 of the Act provision is made for maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law, no guidelines are indicated in that section, It is the opinion of Justice ‘A. Kuppuswami, (See Mayne on Hindu Law and Usage XVII Bd., p. 1056) that in such a case the courts will have to take note of the guidelines mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 23 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and any other factors which it deems just and fit in the circumstances of the case.* 2. Considerations in case of amount of maintenance of awife, children and aged 0” infirm parents.—In fixing the amount ‘of maintenance of a Hindu wife, children who are minors (or unmarried daughters) and aged and infirm parents regard shall be had to— (i) The position and status of parties. —The Tiable and also of person entitled must be taken into account. position and status of the person a 5. AIR 1991 Delhi 44.160 HINDU LAW (@ Reasonable wants of the claimant—The court must consider what amount (iii) rc) @) would enable a person to live according to his position, so as to enable him to live as he used to live previously. The wants of a minor would differ from those of an aged person and the wants of a widow may differ from those of an unmarried daughter. Jf the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in so doing.—Section 18 (2) of the Act enumerates the causes which justify a wife to live separately. A widowed daughter-in-law is not bound to live with her father-in-law. The consideration is very important because the claimant wino is living separately would require more than who is living with the person by whom he is claiming maintenance. So if the claimant is living separately without justifying cause, the court may refuse to allow maintenance. The value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such Property or from the claimant's own earnings and from other sources.—The intention of the legislature is that the maintenance would not be the absolute lability on the person liable, but such a person will have to provide maintenance so as to fulfil the wants of the claimant. Where the claimant has sufficient income to maintain himself or herself, the court is not bound to award maintenance merely because the claimant has a right to claim maintenance. The number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act—The court before fixing the amount of maintenance will see the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act, because more the persons entitled to maintenance less will be the amount, if the income and status of the person Hable is the same, things are to be managed within that sphere. 3. Considerations in case of | dependants—Sub-section (3).—It is in the discretion of the court to determine the exact amount payable by the heir of the deceased, after taking ‘into consid @ (ii) (iii) (iv) leration the following factors mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 23 : The net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of debis— According to Section 26, debts (secured or otherwise) of the deceased shall have priority over the claims of the dependants for maintenance, unless the maintenance has been made a charge on the property. After deduction i the amount of debts, net value of estate of the deceased will come out This factor, in this case, is important being the liability of the heirs to maintain dependants to the extent of the share in estate of deceased taken by him or her. The provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in respect of dependant-—This consideration will arise only when the deceased hee left any will before his or her death. The degree of relationship between the two.—A relative who had never been in touch with the deceased would have a lesser claim and the dependants who are near in relation would have larger claim as dependant’s than any other remote relative, The reasonable want of dependant,—This has been discussed under clause (ii) of sub-section (2).MAINTENANCE 161 (») Past relations between the dependants and the deceased.—See Clause (iii) above. (vi) Value of the dependant’s property and any income.—This has been discussed under clause (iii) of sub-section (2). (vii) The number of dependants.—See discussion on clause (¥) enance it is well-settled law that it should be fixed the debts for which it is liable, the position and of the claimant paying due regard to the ts, wants and class of life of the parties. if any, of of sub-section (2). Regarding the quantum of maint keeping in view extent of the estate, status of the family and the reasonable wants circumstance affecting the mode of living, habit ‘The court should also take into consideration the independent means of support, the person claiming maintenance.® Amount of maintenance may be al circumstances.—The amount of maintenance, whether fixe’ agreement, either before or after the commencement of this Act, subsequently if there is a material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration (Section 25). If the maintenance has been adjudicati tered on change of dd by a decree of court or by may be altered fed upon, and court has fixed the quantum or rate of maintenance, or if the maintenance has been fixed by an agreement between the parties, it may be altered or changed by the court. Parties may, if they like. by agreement, Change or alter the same if the maintenance was fixed by agreement. For instance, owing to the enormous rise in the price of necessaries of life, the old rate may require cnbancement, or the persons or the estate against whom or on which the claim is svailable may face a financial crisis or collapse, and it would be equitable that the rate ‘shich was originally fixed may require reversion to a lesser scale. The amount of wraintenance fixed by will can also be changed or altered.? The provision of this section would apply whether such decree or agreement was arrived at before or after the commencement of this Act. Thus a family settlement was entered into between the son cot the mother stipulating fixed amount for maintenance. Due to change of circumstances the mother applied for enhanced maintenance. It was held that Section 25 is applicable to such a settlement and the suit of the mother for enhanced maintenance was maintainable® Change or alteration when to be made ?—It can be changed or altered if the circumstances atsthe time OF fang the amount of maintenance, whether by court or agreement, have materially changed to justify such alteration. The maintenance can under thre section, altogether be stopped if circumstances justify the same, 'A wife who has agreed to receive maintenance at a particular rate, binding herself not to claim a higher rate, even if circumstances were to change, can maintaia a claim for increase of maintenance if she can justify the same under Section 23. In Shashi Ammal v. Thaivna Amal the Madras High Court held that the right conferred under Section 25 supersedes any contract to the contrary. The fact that the rate of maintenance was fixed by Ramabai v. Meerabai, AIR 1967 MP 86. ‘Sitharathnam v. Seshanma, AIR 1939 Mad. 556. Rangamma v. Venkatarayalu, AIR 1966 Mad. 428. AIR 1964 Mad. 217. See also Muniamal v. Raja, AIR 1978 Mad 103.C2 ?2:2.=x—— ne HINDU LAW arent that Section 25 confers 4 Compromise decree makes no difference. It is apparent that Becton 25 aien ample a He court to vary, modify or even discharge any order fixing the amount, Eero on ey ofthe court eventhough it only states thatthe aun made by ad : me may be “altered” subsequently if there is a material change jn ,, stifying such action Forum.—Sections 18 and 20 of the Act give a right (0 persons mentioned there, to claim maintenance, but the Act has made no provision for a forum where the cla, may be adjudicated. In such circumstances it is the Civil Court only where claim j,, maintenance can be entertained. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 19 prescribe, th District Court as the forum of adjudication under that Act. But on the analogy of the Hindu Marriage Act, claims for maintenance cannot be filed and entertained by a Distric Court. The only remedy available to persons claiming maintenance is from the Ci, Court and not the District Court.'° With the passing of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the Jurisdiction of the District Court has been transferred to the Family Courts, Now all th. matters concerning maintenance shall be dealt with the Family Courts, Maintenance—A charge on estate.—Section 27 of the Act incorporates more or less the law as it stood prior to the Passing of this Act. A dependant’s claim for maintenance shall not ipso facto be a charge on the estate of the deceased or any portion thereof, But the rule has been made Subject to the exceptions that a maintenance allowance due to a dependant, becomes a charge on specific property, when— (1) ithas been so created by the will of the deceased: (2) ithas been so declared by a decree of court; (3) it has been so made by an agreement between the dependant and the owner of the estate or any portion thereof; jk ¢ Manager of a joint family property, the following ieeles ane ee (1) A maintenance order can create a charge over the joint Ore: wie z tamily was joint. (2) When once her right tenance has been declared, defined and reduced to a certai eine maipten Sno he mente a anit PSY by poten ctr es family. (3) Ap, Hanae of a f a oe ty Person including the step-son © eee fo Mt AUestion her right over such properties, 19 case ch properties, or any pi ‘he same are allotted to him in a subsequent partition or 10 Krishna Lal v. Sudershan Kumari (197%) x 80 Pun). LR 147MAINTENANCE 165 devolved on tii. (1) The elit we erented on those propertios prior (0 the division of the fuinily Wi be subsisting. anid continue tll Hifetinne of the holder and the rights af the third purty, Hany, im such proportion Wil be only the charge cremted in hor favour.) Whether freah suit Is necessary to enforce the charge created by 4 decree PeWhen n charge hie heen cronted by an net of prurtios, oF by operation of law, there ean he no recovery of the amount charged on the property by sale of the property, unless there is a suit and wn order of the court for sale has been obtained. Whore, however, there has already been a suit and the court has declared that the money is recoverable from the specific property, the declaration amounts to an order of the court for the usual rights that the chargeholder has to recover the amount by sale of the property Whenever 4 decree is executable for a certain sum of money and charge has been created for the recovery of that amount the property charged is, in the absence of anything to the contrary, saleable in the execution proceeding and no fresh suit is necessary to be inet So the provisions of Order 44, Kules 14 and 15, C.P.C., do not apply in such canes Position of debt under the Act—Section 26 which deals with debt of the deceased, runs as follows + “Debts to have priority. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 27 debts of every description contracted or payable by the deceased shall have priority over the claims of his dependants for maintenance under this Act." (Section 26). Unlews the claim of maintenance of dependants has been made a charge on the property of the deceased by will, agreement or a decree of the court or otherwise, the debts of every description (secured or otherwise) contracted by the deceased or which was payable by him on account, whatsoever, shall have priority over the claim of dependants for maintenance, So it is clear that a maintenance is something lesser than a debt. Even under Hindu Law as administered prior to this Act, debts took precedence over the right to maintenance. Where the right of maintenance is against a deceased Hindu’s property the debts would prevail.!* Effect of transfer of property on the right to maintenance—Pre- Act law.—the right of maintenance cannot be enforced cither against a person who first obtained a transfer for consideration, without notice of the right, or against one who obtained a transfer for value without notice either from an original transferee for value, who had notice from a gratuitous transferce, If the property liable for maintenance was transferred for consideration, the claim to maintenance could not prevail unless the vendor was acting in fraud of a widow's claim to maintenance and the vendee purchased the property, not merely with the knowledge of her claim but also of the vendor's fraudulent intention, In other words, the collusion of the vendor with the vendee was necessary to challenge the transfer. Present Law.—Same law has been enumerated under this Act except that the collusion of vendee or vendor is no longer necessary to challenge the transfer. But he 11 Kangaih v. Gheniah, AIR NGTO AP %. 12. Mahesh Prasad v. Msi, Munder, AIK N95\ All. 39, 13. Adhirance y. Shona Matee,, 1816 (1) Cal, 465; Jayanti v. Amatelu, 27 Mad. 45.164 HINDU LAW must have notice of the right of maintenance. Section 28 deals with effect of Wansfer of property. It runs as follow: “Effect of transfer of property on right to maintenance right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or any part thereo! iy transferred, the right (0 receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous, but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of the right.” Where 4 dependant has a So, according to this section the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against transferee, if— 1. The transferee has notice of the right of dependant’s claim to maintenance. 2. The transfer is gratuitous (i.¢., without consideration), such as gifts Gratuitous transferee is liable even if he may not have the notice of the right of maintenance. Itis to be noted that this “section is not exhaustive and a Hindu wife is still entitled to rely on section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act which is not abrogated by the present section ; and it is open to the court to create a charge in her favour over the property of husband as against an alienee of the same who has purchased the same with notice of the righ In K, Muthuswami Gounder y. N. Palaniappa Gounder,' is an obligation to make payment out of the property specified. The liability to maintain cannot be fastened on the transferee for consideration without notice of right of maintenance." In Ramaswamy v. Bhayammal,'? it was held that it is unreasonable to create a charge over properties far out of proportion to the quantum of maintenance decreed in favour of the wife and that it is but equitable that in first instance wile should be made to pursue properties still in hands of her husband and it is only when it is necessary for her to do so, she should be permitted to proceed against transferred properties, A decree-holder wife is entitled to proceed against the charged property since she has a right to enforce the maintenance decree against the said property. As far as the surplus sale proceeds are concerned, the judgment-debtor husband alone is entitled to the said surplus sale proceeds.'* Transfer for payment of debt.—A claim to maintenance is not a charge on Property unless it is made 50, as is Provided for under the section. In absence of such a charge, debts of every description contracted or payable by the deceased shall have priority over the claims of his dependants for maintenance under this Act. If the property belonging to the husband or to the joint family is sold in liquidation of the debt of the deceased, the sale is binding on the widow, and she has no right of maintenance against it was held that a charge 14, Malla ; Principles of Hindu Law, Ed, XVI (reprint, 1994) p, 91 15, AIR 1998 SC 3118 16. Kapur Kaur v. Krishna Singh, AIR-1970 HP 270. 17, AIR 1967 Mad. 457. 18. Nagasuri Subba Rao v. Nagasuri Kameswaramma, AiR 2009 ap Ramanamma . Annapragada Siuramanjaneyd Sarma is) an "237: Annapragada Venkata LashMAINTENANCE 165 the purchaser or against the property sold to him, even if the purchaser had notice of the im for maintenance. The position would be otherwise, if a charge has been created for clai er by will, agreement or by court such maintenance e Illustration A and his sons B, C and D, are members of a joint family. A dies leaving a widow. ‘After A’s death B as the family head sells the family house in order to pay debts binding on family. A's widow has no claim for maintenance either against the purchaser or against the property. Transfer of property—Pending the suit for maintenance.—If during the pendency of a suit instituted by a widow to establish a charge on specific immovable property for the maintenance, the property is transferred by any other party to the suit, and a decree is subsequently passed creating a charge on the property for the widow's maintenance, the transferee must hold the property subject to such charge, unless the transfer has been affected for the purpose of paying off a debt which has priority over the widow's claim for maintenance.2° This rule is based on the principle of lis pendens as enumerated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The rule does not apply where a widow claims maintenance without asking at the same time that it should be made a charge on the property.?! Repealing provisions—(Section 29).—Repealed by the Repealing and ‘Amending Act, 1960 (58 of 1960), Section 2 and First Schedule. Prior to the repeal, the section read as follows -— “The Hindu Married Women’s Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946, and sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are hereby repealed.” ee 19. Mst. Champa v. Official Receiver, Karachi, 20. Dase Thimmanna y. Krishna, 29 Mad, 508. 21, Mama v. Ellappa, 19 Mad. 271 15 Lah 9; See also Section 26 of the Act