S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 42 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, kovur, Nellore District enhancing the maintenance by one putti of paddy or market value thereof per year from the date of the suit in addition to the maintenance of 21/2 putties per year already granted to her.

( 2 ) THE only point that arises for consideration is whether the step-son is under an obligation to maintain the stepmother having a child. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to a decision reported in P. Rangaiah v. P. Chinnaiah1, the relevant portion reads as under. "from the aforesaid discussion, the following principles of law emerge:- (1) Where one of the members of an undivided Hindu family dies leaving a widow and other coparceners, the widow shall have a right of maintenance against the surviving coparcener or coparceners for the share or interest of her deceased husband in joint family property which was in his hands. (2) The obligation to maintain a widow, depends upon the taking of the deceased husband s share in the family estate and she will have no right to claim maintenance out of the shares that fall to the other members. (3) The right of a Hindu woman or widow to maintenance is founded on relationship. (4) Where there are several groups of sons, the maintenance of their mothers must, so long as the estate remains joint, be a charge upon the whole estate, but when a partition is made, their maintenance is distributed according to relationship, the sons of each mother being bound to maintain her. (5) A step-son has no statutory obligation to maintain his stepmother unless any portion or share of his father in the joint family property is allotted, devolved or taken by him, whereas in the case of a son, natural or adopted, and a husband, the primary liability to maintain his mother or wife as the case may be is a matter of personal obligation arising out of relationship, irrespective of their possession of ancestral or self-acquired property. (6) A maintenance holder, can obtain a decree for maintenance against a member of the undivided family and create a charge over the joint property when their family was joint. (7) When once her right to maintenance has been declared, defined and reduced to a certainty by a decree of Court, such rights cannot be taken away by any subsequent alienation of such property by, or partition of such property effected amongst, the members of that family. (8) The heart of the matter is that the charge secured in lieu of maintenance by a Hindu woman or a widow on the joint family properties is not defeated by any subsequent alienation or partition of those properties but it is liable to be enforced in respect of such properties in whatsoever hands they may be. (9) Any person including the step-son of a maintenance holder, who was a member of the Hindu joint family at the time of the institution of the maintenance suit and the creation of a charge towards the decree obtained by her on the joint family properties, cannot question her right over such properties, in case such properties or any portion of the same are allotted to him in a subsequent partition or devolved on him. (10) The charge created on those properties prior to the division of the family will be subsisting and continue till the lifetime of the maintenance holder and the rights of any third party, if any, in such properties will be only subject to the charge created in her favour. "

( 3 ) IT is clearly stated in this case that stepson has no statutory obligation to maintain his step-mother unless any portion or share of his father in the joint family property is allotted or devolved or taken by him.

( 4 ) IT is also clearly adumbrated that a case of step-son and natural son stands on a different footing. Section 20 of Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 reads as under:"20. Maintenance of children and aged parents: (1) Subject to the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document