JUDGMENT - (1) During the pendency of the investigation of pauperism of the petitioner herein the respondents have applied to this Court for rejection of the application of the petitioner to sue as a pauper under Order 33 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. For the purpose of this application it must be assumed and I am assuming that the allegations contained in the plaint are correct.

(2) The Petitioner claims to be an illegitimate daughter of one Mafatlal Gagalbhai (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). The petitioner has alleged that her mother Sushilabai was concubine and Avaruddha Stree of the said deceased during his life time. The said deceased died intestate on the 19th day of July 1964, living behind him surviving his two sons, named Navinchandra and Bhagubhai, as his heirs and next-of-kin according to Hindu Law. The said Navinchandra and Bhagubhai have died, and Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of the said Navinchandra and Respondent No. 4 is son of the said Bhagubhai. The petitioner alleges that she is unmarried, and as such illegitimate unmarried daughter of the said deceased, is entitled to maintenance out of the estate left by the said deceased. The petitioner also claims to be entitled to have a suitable provision made against the estate of the said deceased for her marriage expenses. The petitioner accordingly seeks to recover from the estate of the said deceased Mafatlal in the hands of the respondents, arrears of maintenance and future maintenance till she is married and for suitable provision made for her marriage expenses.

(3) The question that falls for my determination is "Do the aforesaid facts disclose any cause of action?" In other words, will the Court grant any relief to the petitioner on the aforesaid facts being ultimately established before the Court? The consideration of this question depends upon the construction of the provisions contained in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(4) In order to sustain her claim, the petitioner has to rely upon the provisions contained in Section 22 of the said Act, which came into force on the 21st of December 1956. Prior to the coming into operation of the said Act an illegitimate daughter of a Hindu was not entitled to claim any maintenance against such Hindu or against his or her estate. It is only by virtue of the provisions contained in the above Act that the illegitimate daughter of a Hindu has for the first time acquired the right to claim maintenance from such Hindu during his or her life time and on his or her death against the estate of such deceased Hindu. Section 29 of the said Act casts an obligation on a Hindu to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and that section confers corresponding right on such legitimate or illegitimate children to claim maintenance from their father or mother. An illegitimate daughter is one of the dependants enumerated under Section 21 of the said Act. Section 22 of the Act provides for maintenance of dependants enumerated in Section 21 of the said Act. Section 22 (1) and (2) are relevant and the same read as under:

(1) "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased."

(2) "Where a dependant has not obtained by testamentary or intestate succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate."

(5) It cannot be, and has not been disputed before me that the rights created under Sections 20 and 22 are only prospective and not retrospective. It is also well settled principle of law that the statute should not, as far as possible, be interpreted so as to divest the estate already vested. Keeping in vie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document