JUDGMENT: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the second appeal filed in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `the Code).The second appeal was filed by the appellant, who was defendant No.1 in O.S. No.426 of 1986 on the file of learned first Additional Munsiffs Court, Thiruananthapuram. She and the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the defendants and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, who is the husband of the appellant and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Suit was one for declaration of title in respect of Plaint-A Schedule Property where the defendants were residing and for recovery of possession with mesne profits.

3. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit finding title over the plaint-A Schedule property with the plaintiff-husband. They held that Plaint-A Schedule property was purchased by him under Exh.A-1 (sale deed) utilising his own funds and the funds for the acquisition of the property were not provided by the present appellant- wife. The concurrent decrees passed by the courts below were assailed before the High Court.

4. Stand of the appellant and the present respondent nos.2 and 3 was that being the wife of the plaintiff, the present appellant is entitled to reside in the matrimonial home situated in the plaint schedule property. It was also pointed out that she had already obtained a charged decree for maintenance over the schedule property as per the decree in OS No.139 of 1977. It was, therefore, her stand that the decree passed in the present case will result in conflicting decrees defeating the statutory charge under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short `the TP Act).

5. The High Court was of the view that even if the appellant had obtained a decree for maintenance against the husband, the decree passed in the case for recovery of possession does not in any way, defeat the right of the wife to enforce the charge. Section 39 of the T.P. Act will have operation only if the charged property is transferred in which case, the transferee who is not a bona-fide transferee for value without notice will be liable for the charge. The High Court further held that in view of the factual setting in the case when the relationship between the husband and the wife is estranged, the wife cannot still claim a right of residence in the matrimonial home so as to resist a decree for possession. Therefore, the second appeal was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view expressed by the High Court runs counter to the decision of this Court in Mangat Mal (Dead) and Anr. Vs. Punni Devi (Dead) and Ors. [JT 1995(7) SC 506 ; 1995 (6) SCC 88].

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.

8. In Mangat Mals case (supra), this Court was considering the question whether maintenance encompasses a provision for residence. The case was considered in the light of Section 14(1) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short `the Act).

9. Maintenance, as we see it, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. Provision for residence may be made either by giving a lump sum in money, or property in lieu thereof. It may also be made by providing, for the course of the lady`s life, a residence and money for other necessary expenditure. Where provision is made in this manner, by giving a life interest in property for the purposes of residence, that provision is made in lieu of a pre-existing right to maintenance and the Hindu lady acquires far more than the vestige of title which is deemed