( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench:-- "whether the moral obligation of a father-in-law possessed of separate or self-acquired property, to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law ripens into a legal obligation in the hands of persons to whom he has either bequeathed his property or made and gift of his property?"

( 2 ) CASES similar to the one now referred to this Full Bench hereafter may very rarely come for adjudication before the Courts in view of the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (LXXVIII 1956) under which the rights of daughter-in-law for maintenance have been codified. Section 19 provides for maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law by her father-in-law under the circumstances mentioned therein. Under Section 21 the widow of a pre-deceased son is a dependant. Section 22 speaks of the maintenance of dependants. Therefore, matters in respect of maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law are governed by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, where the death of the father-in-law takes place subsequent to the coming into force of the above Act.

( 3 ) THE present case is one where the father-in-law died in 1954, i. e. , before the said Act came into force bequeathing his property under a will. Before his death his son died leaving his widow. Therefore, we have to examine this case mainly with reference to the law that existed prior to the Maintenance Act came into force.

( 4 ) THE order of reference contains the facts of the case. It is unnecessary for us to reiterate the same facts, except making reference to a few of them that have direct bearing. The plaintiff is the appellant in the High Court. She is the widow of one Satyanarayana, who died in the year 1933. The 1st defendant, Rama Rao, is the brother of Satyanarayana and Kamaraju is their father. Kamaraju died in 1954. The 1st defendant also died pending the suit. The 1st defendant was given in adoption to one Surya Prakash Rao, brother of Kamaraju. There was a partition on 30-11-1923, between Kamaraju and his brothers. Kamaraju got considerable properties to his share in that partition. Satyanarayana and Kamaraju continued as members of the undivided family. At a later stage Satyanarayana executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of his father on 21- 9-1924, whereunder he gave up all his rights in all moveable and immoveable properties to which he was entitled. As a consideration thereof Kamaraju agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 to the plain tiff as Satyanarayana (Plaintiffs husband) had taken the jewels of that value belonging to his wife for his personal needs. Kamaraju had even agreed to discharge all the debts of Satyanarayana amounting to Rupees 2,200/ -. After the relinquishment deed Kamaraju was enjoying the entire property as his separate property. There after Kamaraju executed a registered will on 23-5-1936, whereby he gave estate to his widow Lakshmi Narasamma in all the properties and the remainder to his natural son, the 1st defendant, who had gone in adoption. After the death of Kamaraju, Lakshmi Narasamma by a registered relinquishment deed dated 5-10-1961 relinquished her right, title and interest in the property in favour of the Ist defendant. Thus, the Ist defendant became absolutely entitled to all the properties. By a number of documents executed in 1961 the Ist defendant alienated his properties by way of sale or gift. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession and alternatively for maintenance at Rs. 100. 00 per month and also for a provision to be made for her residence. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence the appeal filed in this Court.

( 5 ) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench the main submission with regard to the claim for maintenance was that the father-in-law Kamaraju was only under a moral obligation to maintain the plaintiff on the footing that the properties in his hands w