A Hindu father-in-law governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law is under a legal obligation to maintain his destitute widowed daughter-in-law, and this obligation is not subject to the restriction imposed by Section 19(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for recovery of maintenance. The only point that is involved in this appeal is whether a Hindu father-in-law governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, is under a legal obligation to maintain his destitute widowed daughter-in-law.

( 2 ) THE respondent Sm. Puspa Rani Pramanik, who was the plaintiff, is the widowed daughter-in-law of the appellant, Kanai Lal Pramanik, The respondent was married to the appellant's son Satyanarayan Pramanik in Baisakh 1335 B. S. Unfortunately, her husband died in the month of Agrahayan 1357 B. S. without leaving any issue, Both the respondent and her husband were minors at the time of their marriage. It has been found by the trial court that the respondent who has been living in her father's house has no source of income by which she can maintain herself. Her father is also a poor man. The appellant, her father-in-law, has however, considerable quantities of land. The appellant has refused to maintain his daughter-in-law, namely, the respondent. In that view of the matter, the trial court has decreed her suit in part. It has been directed that she will be entitled to Rs. 40/- per month from the appellant on account of her maintenance with effect from the date of the decree. Further, it has been decreed that the respondent would get a sum of Rs. 10/-per month along with the monthly maintenance from the appellant on account of her accommodation. The respondent's claim for arrears of maintenance has also been decreed in part to the extent of Rs. 480/ -. The properties mentioned in Schedule 'b' to the plaint have been charged for the amounts decreed. The lower appellate court has also affirmed the findings and the decree of the trial court.

( 3 ) THE findings of the court's below have not been challenged before us on behalf of the appellant, for those are findings of fact. Mr. Subrata Nayak, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has, however, urged that in view of Section 19 (2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from her father-in-law, the appellant. Before we consider the said contention, it may be stated that under the Hindu law the obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law is a moral obligation which cannot be enforced in case the father-in-law refuses to maintain his daughter-in-law. After the death of the father-in-law, this moral obligation ripens into legal obligation of his heirs to maintain her out of the estate of her father-in-law. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has effected a material change in the rights of a widow in the matter of inheritance. Under that Act, a widowed daughter-in-law is a Class I heir of her father-in-law. Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act provides as follows : --"19 (1 ). A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law : provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance- (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. (2) Any obligation under Sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law. "

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that as Sub-section (2) refers to the coparcenary property, Section 19 is not applicable to persons governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that the concept of coparcenary property is that of Mitakshara