A compromise decree fixing maintenance for a Hindu widow, which includes an agreement not to claim either enhancement of maintenance or reduction, is binding on the widow and precludes her from claiming an enhanced rate of maintenance, even in the case of changed circumstances.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kaklnada, dismissing O. S. No. 137 of 1950 filed by the appellant in form a pauper is for recovery of maintenance at an enhanced rate.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs husband late Achanna and defendants 1 to 3 are members of a joint Hindu family. Plaintiffs husband died in the year 1916 without issue. After his death, the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 41 of 1923 for recovering maintenance from the members of the family. That suit was compromised and. under the compromise decree made on dated 2/08/1924, she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 240. 00 per year. It was also agreed between the parties that the plaintiff should not raise any dispute claiming enhanced rate of maintenance and the dependants should not raise any dispute for reducing that rate. Pursuant to the compromise, the plaintiff had been receiving maintenance at the agreed rate till she filed the present suit. In the suit, she claimed that the family had become very rich and that in the changed circumstances, she would be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2. 400. 00 per year and also to cash of Rs. 3. 000. 00 for performing vrathams, nomulus etc.

( 3 ) THE defendants stated that the present value of the property owned by them was exaggerated and that, in any event, she was bound by the compromise decree and could not claim any amount higher than that fixed thereunder.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the compromise decree precluded her from claiming an enhanced rate of maintenance. He expressed the view that, if it was open to him to fix maintenance, he would fix it at a sum of Rs. , 2,400. 00having regard to the changed circumstances. In the result, he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred the above appeal.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contends that the compromise decree of the year 1924 does not preclude Ms client from claiming an enhanced rate of maintenance having regard to the changed circumstances. The terms of the compromise, which were embodied in the decree, are given in Ex. A-2. Under that decree, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 240. 00 per year towards her maintenance and charge the same on specified items of the family property. The crucial terms of the agreement, which is the subject matter of the dispute between the parties reads thus :"both the parties shall not raise disputes between themselves, the plaintiff pleading for enhancement of the rate from the said Rs. 240. 00 and the defendants for the reduction of the rate. "

( 6 ) THE question is when the parties agreed not to claim either enhancement of maintenance or reduction, as the case may be, and on that basis a certain amount was fixed as maintenance, is it open to either of them to go behind the decree? This question is directly covered by the decisions of two Division Benches of the Madras High Court.

( 7 ) THE validity of a contract by a Hindu widow with her husbands coparceners to receive a fixed maintenance per annum and not to claim any increase in future even in the case of changed circumstances was considered by Phillips and Venkata Subba Rao JJ. in Mohieswara Rao v. Durgamba, ILR 47 Mad. 308: (AIR 1924 Mad 687 ). After noticing the cases cited at the Bar, the learned Judge observed at p. 310 (of ILR Mad): (at p. 688 of AIR): "they undoubtedly recognize the fact that an agreement to receive maintenance at a particular rate is not binding for all time; but none of them is authority for holding that, when the agreement does further and binds the widow not to claim a higher rate even in changed circumstances, it is not binding on her. "

( 8 ) THIS view was accepted by another Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Kameshwaramma v. Thammanna 1939-2 Mad LJ 460 : (AIR 1939 Mad 798 ). There, the award, which decided the widows right to maintenance and was acted upon by her, provided that she should not be entitled