The quantum of maintenance payable to a Hindu widow is to be determined based on the share of her husband at the time of his death and not at the time of the filing of the suit for maintenance.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are appliants, O. S. No. 63 of 1945 was filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court of Masulipatam, for recovery of maintenance, past and future, and for other incidental reliefs. Her case was that her deceased husband Narsimha Rao and appellants were brothers, that her husband died about years ago soon after her marriage and that no maintenance whatsoever was provded by the appellants to her. She alleged that the net income realised to the family of the defendants was not less than Rs. 5,000. 00 a year and that she was entitled to claim future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per mensem. So far as the past maintenance was concerned, she limited her claim to the sum of Rs. 300.- a year for a period of 12 years. She also prayed that provision might be made for cattle, utensils and residence.

( 2 ) THE 4th defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by his brothers i. e. , defendants 1 to 3. He contended that after the death of the father of defendants 1 to 4, their maternal uncle, that is, the plaintiffs father, was managing their affairs and providing maintenance for the plaintiff out of their family income. that the maintenance claimof the plaintiff was settled by providing her with a thatched house and allotting 40 cocoanut trees and 15 palmyrah treees, and that she was not entitled to claim any maintenance, past or future. He also urged that, in any event, having regard to the income of the family, not more than Rs. 100. 00 per annum should be awarded to her.

( 3 ) THE Subordinate Judge of Masulipatnam discussed the evidence bearing on this question of settlement of maintenance in paragraphs 5 and 6 and found that the defendants story was absolutely false. He found that the family income was not less than Rs. 3,000. 00 per year and awarded future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400. 00 per year. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim arrears of maintenance for a perioid of 12 years at the rate of Rs. 200 per year. In lieu of residence, he directed that either a lump sum of Rs. 300. 00 or a sum of Rs. 2. 00 per month might be paid. For utensils and other moveables, he allowed Rs. 100. 00. The entire "a" schedule properties attached to the plaint were charged for the maintenance decreed. The defendants have preferred the above appeal reiterating the several objections raised by them in the trial court and the plaintiff has filed a memo of cross-objections claiming enhancement of future maintenance by Rs. 100. 00.

( 4 ) SO the questions that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the respondents claim was settled by allotment of a thatched hut and 40 cocoanut trees and 15 palmyrah trees? 2. What is the income of the appellants family and what amount should be decreed to the respondent for future maintenance? 3. Whether the respondent is entitled to any areas of maintenance, and if so, how much?

( 5 ) IN paragraph 3 of the written statement, the dateof the settlement and the names of the mediators who were present at the time are not mentioned. The circumstances under which the settlement took place are also not specified in detail. There is no document evidencing the settlement. The only two wintesses who are examined in support of this statement are the 2nd defendant and his mother, that is, the mother-in-law of the respondent. The court below rightly rejected their evidence as being interested and not worthy of credence. They also donot specify where exactly the cocoanut trees and palmyrah trees allotted to the respondent stand. I have carefully gone through the oral evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 and I agree with the finding of the trial court that the settlement pleaded is absolutely false.

( 6 ) SO far as the income from the family lands is concerned, I think the estimate of the Subordinate Judge, fixing it at not less than Rs. 3,000. 00 is a moderate one. (His Lordship went through the evidence and continued:) The learned