Judgement

Appeal (No. 128 of 1927) from a decree of the High Court (May 13, 1926) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga (March 10, 1924).

The appellant, a Hindu widow, whose husband died in 1917, brought the present suit on April 22, 1922, claiming maintenance with arrears. She had continued to reside in the ancestral house of her deceased husband until towards the end of 1921, and had since resided with her father.

The facts appear from the judgment.

The trial judge made a decree for Rs. 350 per month from the date of his decree. The plaintiff appealed, and the defendants filed cross-objections. The High Court (Das and Adami JJ.) affirmed the decree.

1929. Feb. 8. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant.

Dunne K.C. and S. Hyam for the respondents.

March 5. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD SHAW. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated May 13, 1926, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated March 10, 1924.

The appellant is the widow of Babu Ekradeshwar Singh, a descendant in the junior line of the Darbhanga family. Babu Ekradeshwar was twice married. He died on October 21, 1916, survived by the appellant, his second wife, and a daughter by her, and by the respondents 1, 2 and 3, his sons by his first wife, who had predeceased him. He was also survived by respondents 4 and 5, his grandsons, who were the sons of respondent No. 2.

The appellant, Ekradeshwari, who was sole widow, continued to live in the family house for four or five years after her husbands death. She complains in this action that the style of life to which she had to submit during that residence was penurious and inadequate. Upon leaving her husbands house she went to stay with her father with whom she still lives.

In the year 1917 a suit was instituted by the respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 for partition of the estate left by their father and a compromise was arrived at. The position of the family had been brought before the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bhagalpur with a view to having the maintenance of the appellant fixed. The judges order of February 23, 1918, decreeing a partition, states that a petition by the parties as to the maintenance of their stepmother could not be dealt with judicially, as she did not appear, though requested to do so. It may be doubtful whether the appellant was fully apprised of, or understood, these proceedings, and it is clear that no maintenance was either asked for by her or fixed for her in that suit, and that she continued her residence and maintenance as before. She, however, as already mentioned, did ultimately leave the family house, and took up her abode with her father, who maintains this daughter in his household with the rest of his family.

The property thus partitioned was heavily incumbered with debts. There is no question however that it remained liable to the widows claim for maintenance. Shortly after taking up residence with her father the appellant raised this suit.

In view of the ascertained facts of the case the demands made in the suit were of an unusually serious character. A maintenance allowance was asked at the rate of Rs. 18,000 per annum. Arrears of maintenance were asked from the date of her husbands death, amounting to Rs. 99,000. A further sum of Rs. 15,000 was demanded for the cost of building a house for her separate use and occupation. Finally, a demand was made for Rs. 13,170, the price of jewellery and ornaments contained in a list which was appended to the plaint. These were alleged to have belonged to the plaintiff and to be wrongfully detained by the defendants.

In the course of the proceedings the case as to the last item entirely failed. Both Courts agreed that it had not been made out in fact. They further agreed that the separate item for the cost of building a separate house for herself failed.

There remain, however, the important clai