MEHTA, J. :- This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda, in Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1957, dated 30th October 1958, by which he had decreed the plaintiff's claim for arrears of maintenance at Rs. 115/- per month and had accordingly awarded. Rs. 2,640/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim was, for Rs. 300/- for herself, and Rs. 45/-, for pay of the three maid servants, in all Rs. 345/- per month.

2. The plaintiff is the widow of late Thakore of Gadboriad State, Omkarsinji, who expired on 17th February 1934. The defendant succeeded to the, Gadi of the State, which was a semi-jurisdictional. State, with civil, criminal and revenue jurisdiction. The Thakore had a right to recover custom, excise and land revenue. The plaintiff based her claim of maintenance on the Hindu Law and as the Gadboriad State was governed by the custom of primogeniture. After the death of her husband the Thakore's estate was taken under management for about 12 years by the Government and at that time the plaintiff was allowed maintenance at Rs. 115/- per month by the Government. After the defendant succeeded to the throne the maintenance was first reduced to Rs. 100/-per month and then to Rs. 90/-. She was paid at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month till 31st May 1955. From 1st June 1955 the defendant further reduced this maintenance amount to Rs. 50/- per month and even the pay of the maid servants was discontinued. According to the plaintiff, the other co-widow Gulab-kunverba was getting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. Being the widow of the late Thakore, as per her status and requirements, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 300/- per month for her maintenance. She gave a notice on 24th July 1956 to the defendant which was replied by the, defendant on 29th July 1956 by which he refused to pay maintenance at the rate of more than Rs. 50/- per month. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant succeeded to the entire estate of her late husband as an heir and inherited all the properties including ornaments, cash and other properties. In. view of the defendant's income the plaintiff claimed a total amount of Rs. 10,920/- by way of arrears from the defendant from 1st August 1954 giving a deduction for the amount paid to her. The defendant's plea was that the plaintiff was not entitled to any such maintenance according to Hindu Law or according to the custom of the State; that the co-widow and the other widow of the elder brother Motisinhji were paid Rs. 50/- only per month as. maintenance; that the deceased had no separate property and had only a life interest in the property o£ the State. The defendant denied that he had the property alleged by the plaintiff or that he derived the income as alleged by the plaintiff and he stated that the plaintiff had sufficient properties of her own and got a net income of Rs. 1200/- while the defendant had no income after the merger of the State. He had even no money to pay the arrears of the Mewas Fund to the Government. The trial Court held that the defendant had sufficient means to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 115/- per month, and, on that basis, awarded arrears to the plaintiff. It further held that the defendant was liable to the extent of the property which he got as Ex-ruler. The plaintiff has, therefore, preferred this appeal for the balance of her claim.

3. At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Oza requested us to exhibit the notice correspondence marked Exs. 14/4 and 14/5 which remained unexhibited through oversight. Mr. Thakkar for the plaintiff-appellant had no objection and we have ordered the said documents to be exhibited in the case at Exs. 100 and 101.

4. Mr. Oza for the respondent raised a preliminary point that the plaintiff's right of maintenance, if any, from the Thakore's estate being an incident of Jagir was extinguished under Section 3 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act