A charge created by a decree for maintenance obtained 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 whosoever hands they may be.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal raises an interesting question of law as to whether a charge created by a decree for maintenance obtained by the wife of the manager of a joint Hindu family over the joint family property is binding on the stepson of the manager who was not a party to the suit for maintenance.

( 2 ) THE facts are few and they are not in dispute. This appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for partition and possession of the suit property free of charge against the 2nd defendant, his step-mother. The 1st defendant became ex parte. The 2nd defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that the charge created by her maintenance decree in O. S. 196/55, Munisif Court, over the suit property will be binding on the plaintiff and she would be entitled to have a charge on the portion of the property that would be allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit. the appellate Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partition and possession of his half share in the plaint schedule property subject to the charge already created by the maintenance decree. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

( 3 ) MR. Seetharamaiah for the appellant strenuously contends that the 2nd defendant who is the step mother of the plaintiff cannot claim maintenance against the plaintiff, her step-son, as there is no personal liability for him to maintain her, unless a share of her husband is allotted to him, and cited (1904) ILR 27 Mad 45, (1889) ILR 16 Cal 758 (PC), AIR 1939 Mad 781; AIR 1944 Bcom 235 (2), (1963) 2 An. WR 400= (AIR 1964 Andh Pra 105), and some passages from Maynes and Trevelyans Hindu Law in support of his plea that there can be no valid charge in respect of plaintiffs share. Mr. raghava Rao, for the contesting respondent, contended contra.

( 4 ) THE real question that arises fro determination is whether a charge created by the decree for maintenance obtained by the 2nd defendant, the wife of 1st defendant, over the suit property towards her maintenance wherein the defendants 1 and 2 constituted members of the joint family, is binding on the plaintiff, a stepson, who was not a party to the maintenance suit.

( 5 ) I shall presently consider the legal position with regard to the Hindu womans right to maintenance and in particular from a seep-son and the effect of the charge created over the suit property by virtue of the prior decree.

( 6 ) SIR Raymond West, in his "a Digest of the Hindu Law," at page 244, enunciates that "a widows claim extends only to the interest of her deceased husband in the undivided property. " A passage in Hindu Law by Sir Ernest John Trevelyan (second edition) at pages 78 and 79 reds thus: "a widow who succeeds to no property as heir to her husband, is (whether she has or has not a son) entitled to maintenance out of the whole o the property in which her husband was interested as owner or coparcener at the time of his death, or in which he would have been so interested if he had not been disabled from inheritance, or from being coparcenere, whether she have property of her own or not. : A passage in Maynes Treatise on Hindu Law and usage (11th edition) at Page 882 reds thus: "while a widow is entitled to maintenance from her son in her character as mother, even if he is not in possession of ancestral property, a similar right against her father-in-law is not admitted. the Smritichandrika expressly states that the obligation to maintain the widow is dependent on taking the property of the deceased. She is entitled to be maintained where her husbands separate property is taken by his male issue. Where, at the time of his death, he was a coparcener she is entitled to maintenance as against those who take her husbands share by survivorship. "

( 7 ) IN Jayanti subbiah v. Alamelu Mngamma, (1904) ILR 27 Mad 45 at Pp. 48 and 49. Bhashyam Ayyangar, J. speaking for the Division Bench, ruled thus:-