A widow is entitled to maintenance from the joint family properties if her husband died as a member of the joint family.

Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - HINDU LAW - JOINT FAMILY - HUSBAND DYING AS MEMBER OF JOINT FAMILY - WIDOW ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE FROM JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES - BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY FATHER AND SONS - HELD TO BE JOINT FAMILY BUSINESS - PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM PROFITS OF BUSINESS - HELD TO BE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - WIDOW ENTITLED TO SHARE IN PROPERTIES AND MAINTENANCE FROM DEFENDANTS.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff's husband, Mafatlal, died in 1942, leaving behind the plaintiff as his widow. Mafatlal was the son of defendant 1 and brother of defendant 2. Defendant 3 is the son of defendant 2. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming maintenance and a share in the joint family properties. The defendants denied the existence of a joint family and claimed that the properties were self-acquired.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff's husband was a member of the joint family at the time of his death, that the business carried on by the defendants was a joint family business, and that the properties acquired from the profits of the business were joint family properties. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance from the defendants and to a share in the joint family properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's husband was a member of the joint family at the time of his death? 2. Whether the business carried on by the defendants was a joint family business? 3. Whether the properties acquired from the profits of the business were joint family properties? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance from the defendants? 5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the joint family properties?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * A widow is entitled to maintenance from the joint family properties if her husband died as a member of the joint family. * A business carried on by the father and sons is presumed to be a joint family business. * Property acquired from the profits of a joint family business is joint family property. * A widow is entitled to maintenance from the defendants and to a share in the joint family properties.
Final Decision: The court modified the decree passed by the trial court and granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 6,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the suit until the whole amount is paid to her, on account of arrears of maintenance. The plaintiff was also entitled to receive from the defendants, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month from the date of the suit and Rs. 25/- on account of rent of the premises which she might hire for her residence.

Judgment

1. This Is an appeal by the original defendants. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections. The plaintiffs husband Mafatlal was the son of defendant 1 and brother of defendant 2. Defendant 3 is the son of defendant 2, The plaintiff was married to Mafatlal on 3-1-1951. Unfortunately for her, Mafatlal died in the following year on 17-8-1942. At that time Mafatlal was 24 years old. On 1,-10-1942, the plaintiff left defendant 1s house and went to reside with her mother.

In January 1952, she gave a notice to the de-fendants claiming maintenance. Her claim was repudiated by the defendants. On 15-4-1952, the plaintiff filed the present suit. She alleged in the plaint that, at the time when her husband expired, he was joint along with the defendants l and 2, that the family had a joint family business of building contractors and that the defendants had acquired extensive properties from the income of this business.

She claimed Rs. 70/- per month for her maintenance and Rs. 25/- per month for her residence. She also claimed Rs. 10,830/- on account of arrears of maintenance. Subsequently by an amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff asked for partition and separate possession of her share in the joint family properties. That claim was subsequently not pressed.

The suit was resisted by the defendants. They denied that there was any joint family business. It was also contended that defendants 1 and 2 were separate and that the various properties alleged by the plaintiff to be joint family properties were self-acquired properties of the defendants.

The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs husband was joint with the defendants at the time of his death, that the business done by the defendants was a joint family business and that the property mentioned in para 14 of the plaint i.e., a bungalow, on which the plaintiff had asked for a charge being placed for the amount decreed in her favour, was joint family property.

The learned Judge did not regard the plaintiffs claim for Rs. 70/- per month as unreasonable, but having regard to the fact that she was working as a teacher on a salary of Rs. 125/- per month, he allowed her maintenance at Rs. 50/-per month. He also asked the defendants to pay her Rs. 16/- per month for residence.

For arrears of maintenance, the learned Judge granted the plaintiff Rs. 3,000/-, which amount she had borrowed for the purpose of maintaining herself. He also placed a charge on the bungalow belonging to the defendants. From this decree, the defendants have come in appeal and the plaintiff has filed cross-objections. It has been urged by Mr. Shah on behalf of the defendants that they are not liable to maintain the plaintiff and the family does not possess any joint family properties.

The case of the defendants as would appear from their evidence, is that defendant 1s father was a railway contractor. Defendant 1 separated from his father in 1920. After doing some business in partnership with his brothers, defendant 1 separated and started a shop which he conducted till 1928. He suffered a loss in that business.

He had several creditors, whose claims he settled at the rate of four annas per rupee. Exhibit 54 is the composition deed executed on 3-10-1928 by defendant 1 on behalf of himself and his two minor sons. In order to pay off his creditors, defendant 1 sold the ancestral properties which had fallen to his share, by two documents. Ex. 56 executed on 10-12-1929 and Ex. 102 executed on 15-4-1932.

The first of these documents was executed by both the defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 1 executed it on behalf of himself and his minor son Mafatlal, the husband of the plaintiff. In 1930-31 defendant 1 took up service. He continued to serve till 1932 when he started his own contractors business. In 1936, he purchased a plot, on which the bungalow mentioned in the plaint stands, for Rs. 5,800/-.

The bungalow was built in 1939 at a cost of about Rs. 12,000/-. In 1940, defendant 2 separated from defendant 1 and started living

Click Here to Read the rest of this document