The provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not retrospective and a married woman, who left her husband to live with another as his permanently kept mistress, could be regarded as an Avaruddha Stree.

( 1 ) THE two questions that are referred to the Full Bench are (i) whether the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are retrospective and (ii) whether a married woman, who left her husband and lived with another as his permanently kept mistress could be regarded as an Avaruddha Stree.

( 2 ) THE facts material for this enquiry may be set out shortly. The respondents originally raised an action In the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, for a declaration of their right to and possession of the several properties set out in the plaint schedule. The 1st respondent is the mother and next friend of respondents 2 to 4, who are minors. The properties were claimed as belonging to one Amireddi Llngayya, who died in February, 1948, with the averments that the 1st respondent is a Brahmin by birth, that in or about 1938 she was married to the said Lingayya, a Sudra, who had lost his first wife and that respondents 3 to 4 as the sons of Lingayya by her born in lawful wedlock. Art alternative case was also put forward, namely, that if for any reason it was held that the 1st respondent was not the legally wedded wife of Lingayya, she was at least his permanently kept concubine and exclusively in his keeping during his life time and as such she and her children by Lingayya were entitled to the properties left by him.

( 3 ) THE suit was opposed by trip brothers of Lingayya and their sons on the defence that the 1st respondent was never married to Lingayya, that she was married to Chivakula Siyaramakrishnayya, that she left her husband and was living a life of promiscuous immorality, that she had nothing to do with Lingayya and that respondents 2 to 4 were not born to him. They also pleaded that Lingayya died undivided from his brothers.

( 4 ) THE Subordinate Judge found that the 1st respondent was married to Chivakula Sivarama-krishnayya, that she was not lawfully married to Lingayya hut was exclusively kept by him, that res pondents 2 to 4 were born to him, that Lingayya died divided from his brothers and that the suit properties were the separate and absolute properties of Lingayya. But he dismissed the suit for the reason that the 1st respondent, being a married woman and children born of adulterous intercourse between her and Lingayya, were not entitled to succeed to the properties of Lingayya. As there was no alternative prayer for maintenance, that question was not considered by him,

( 5 ) THE respondents carried the matter in appeal to the High Court of Madras. The High Court agreed with the aforementioned conclusions of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. However, they granted leave to amend the plaint by including the necessary averments and prayer for the award of maintenance on the footing that the 1st plaintiff though not married to Lingayya, was his permanently kept concubine, and remanded the suit to the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, for trial in regard to the relief of maintenance.

( 6 ) IN spite of the finding of the trial court on the former occasion that the 1st plaintiff was kept exclusively by the said Lingayya as his concubine and that the other plaintiffs were born to him by the 1st plaintiff, the defendants raised the issue once again in the trial court. The Subordinate; Judge examined this question afresh on the material placed before him and arrived at the decision that the 1st plaintiff was living with Lingayya from 1938 up to his death in February, 1948, that she hore to him the other plaintiffs, that she was keeping her sexual fidelity to him and that therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to maintenance. He fixed a maintenance of 25 bags of paddy to each of the plaintiffs per year for their fives.

( 7 ) BOTH parties were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court and they have preferred these appeals. Defendants have preferred A. S. No. 709 of 1954 and plaintiffs A. S. No. 199 of 1955. The parties will be referred to in