A widow who has surrendered her husband's estate to his brothers and executed a maintenance deed with them cannot claim enhancement of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as she is not a person entitled to maintenance under the traditional Hindu law or under the Act.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants before me. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Pathuri Seethamma, the respondent-plaintiff, who is the widow of Butchi Ramanna. Butchi Ramanna died in 1933 having divided from his brothers, Veeranna and Venkanna. On the death of Butchi Ramanna, his properties devolved on Seethamma, the widow. She, however, executed a surrender deed after four years of her husbands death in favour of Venkanna and Veeranna who were the nearest reversioners to the estate. They, in turn, executed a maintenance deed promising to pay Rs. 25 per year besides promising to supply some chillies and redgram. The first defendant is the wife of Venkanna and the second defendant is the daughter. The third defendant is the brother-in-law of Veeranna. The fourth defendant is his son. The plaintiff contended that the maintenance amount is too meager in view of the rise in prices and, therefore, pleaded that the amount be enhanced. She, therefore, wanted Rs. 300 per year apart from the supply of chillies and redgram fixed in the maintenance deed.

( 2 ) IN the written statement, it was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to enhancement of maintenance. An objection was raised that, under the law, she cannot claim any enhancement. It was also pleaded that there is a recital in the maintenance deed to the effect that no claim for enhancement or reduction could be entertained. The defendants also denied that there are circumstances which warrant increase in the maintenance amount.

( 3 ) UPON these pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The plaintiff marked one document while the defendants marked one other document. No oral evidence was adduced on either side.

( 4 ) UPON this material, the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit negativing the contentions raised by the defendants. It was found that the plaintiff would be entitled at Rs. 150 per annum to be paid in two installments, one from Asvayuja Bahula 30 and the other on Magha Bahula 30. The trial Court also granted arrears at the same rate from the date of the suit.

( 5 ) DISSATISFIED with that judgment, the two sets of defendants filed two separate appeals. A. S. Nos. 251 and 270 of 1961. The District Judge, Eluru, disallowed the appeals agreeing with the view of the trial Court. It is this decision of the learned District Judge that is the subject-matter of the second appeal, which is preferred by one set of defendants.

( 6 ) THE principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, after the execution of the surrender deed, the widow was not entitled to any maintenance under the traditional Hindu Law, that she was given maintenance only under an agreement and that no suit, therefore, can lie for the enhancement of such a maintenance fixed by the contract. It was further contended that S. 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (No. 78 of 1956) (hereafter called the Act) is not applicable because the widow would not be entitled to maintenance under S. 22 of the Act in view of the fact that her husband died before the Act came into force.

( 7 ) IT is not in doubt that a widow, who surrenders the estate in favour of her immediate reversioners, thus effaces herself cannot have claims to maintenance from the reversioners. In Kondamma v. Seshamma, 1956 Andh WR 415 = (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 156), a Full Bench of this Court held that"if there is an agreement between the widow who surrenders the estate of her deceased husband and the next reversioner who takes the estate on such surrender that the widow should be provided maintenance out of the estate, either by the allotment of a specific part of the property or by payment of a specific sum or otherwise, the widow would be entitled to maintenance in accordance with such agreement. She cannot get enhanced maintenance in excess of the agreed stipulation if the reversioner objects. If, however, the widow surrenders the estate in favour of the n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document