The right to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a right created under the Act, and the remedy for its enforcement must be as provided in the Act itself.

( 1 ) THIS is defendant's appeal. The respondents filed O. S. No. 155 of 1978 in the Court of the Munsiff, Basavakalyan, under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as H. A. and M. Act) claiming maintenance from the defendant.

( 2 ) THE basic facts in the plaint are:- respondenm-plaintiff 1 is the married wife of the defendant-appellant and respondent-2 is the minor daughter of plaintiff-1 and the defendant.

( 3 ) THE defendant contended that he had married one Sarjabai in 1964 and after her death, he married one Rajanabai in the year 1967. As she had not yet attained puberty, she was not brought home. Plaintiff-1 was acquainted with him. intimacy developed between them and the villagers insisted that he must marry plaintiff-1. He married her according to customary ceremonies and rites. Plaintiff-2 is his daughter by plaintiff-1. In view of the fact that his marriage with plaintiff-1 had taken place during the subsistence of the marriage between him and Ranjanabai during her life (Ranjanabai is still alive), his marriage with plaintiff-1 is void under Section 5 (i) of the hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as H. M. Act ). Hence plaintiff-1 is not entitled to be maintained by him as of right and the suit filed by her is not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE trial Court has recorded a finding, after appreciating the evidence, that the defendant had established that he had married Ranjanabai after the death of Sarjabai and during the subsistence of that marriage he had married plaintiff-1 and therefore the marriage between plaintiff-1 and the defendant is void. Thereafter, it has proceeded to apply the law as laid down in C. Obula konda Reddy v. C, Pedda Venkata Lakshamma (A. I. R 1976 A P. 43) and hold that the suit was maintainable. it has granted Rs. 100/- per m:nth for maintenance of plaintiff-1 and Rs 45/- towards maintenance of' plaintiff-2. The defendant preferred R. A. No. 79 of 1981 and the plaintiffs preferred R. A. No. 15 of 1982, in the Court of the Civil Judge, bidar, In their appeal, the plaintiffs claimed enhancement of maintenance. In his appeal the defendant contended that the decree passed by the trial Court was not sustainable in law. The lower appellate Court has disposed of the appeals, without recording any finding on the question whether the defendant had married plaintiff-1 in contravention of section 5 (i) of the H. M. Act. According to the lower appellate Court even if the marriage is considered to be void, plaintiffs have to succeed in view of C, Obula konda Reddy's case1. It has allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and enhanced the maintenance of plaintiff-1 to Rs. 125/- per month and that of plaintiff-2 to Rs, 75/- per month. R. A. No. 79 of 1981 filed by the defendant has been dismissed.

( 5 ) THIS second eppeal is directed against the said judgments and decrees. It has been admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of jaw, as formulated at the time of admission. 1) Whether in view of plaintiff-1's case that she was married to defendant some ten years before the institution of the suit O. S. No. 155/1978, during the lifetime of the second wife of the defendant, would she be a Hindu wife within the meaning of Sec. 18 (1) and (2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act ? 2) If she was married to the defendant during the life time of his second wife, would she be entitled to maintenance under Sec. 18 of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act ?

( 6 ) SRI M. Mahableshwar Goud, learned coursel for the appellant, submitted that the appeal is restricted to the claim of plaintiff-1 only and argued that it was the duty of the lower appellate court to record a finding on the question whether plaintiff-1's marriage with the defendant was or was not hit by Section 5 (f) of the H M. Act. He urged that a direction be given for recording such a finding. He pointed out that in case such a finding is recorded in favour of the plaintiffs