Judgement

Appeal (No. 156 of 1924) in forma pauperis by special leave, from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (August 11, 1922) reversing a decree of the Court in its original jurisdiction (November 25, 1921).

The appellant claimed that as a concubine of a deceased Hindu she was entitled after his death to maintenance out of his estate.

The facts are stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge (Kanga J.) made a decree for maintenance, and directed a reference to ascertain its amount.

On appeal the decree was set aside. The learned judges (Shah A.C.J. and Crump J.) were of opinion that the appellant was not an " avarrudha stri" of the deceased, so as to be entitled to maintenance. Their view appears from the present judgment, and fully from a report of the appeal at I. L. R. 47 B. 401.

1926. March 18, 19, 22. E. B. Raikes for the appellant.

De Gruyther K.C., Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Parikh for respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6.

[Reference was made to Khemkor v. Umiashankar (( 1873) 10 Bom. H. C. (A. C. J.) 381.); Vrandavandas v. Yamunabai (( 1875) 12 Bom. H. C. 229.); Yashvantrav v. Kashibai (( 1887) I. L. R. 12 B. 26.); Nigareddi v. Laks