1. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition; and the sole question for consideration is whether the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to maintenance. The lower court has refused to award maintenance to him on its finding that he had waived his claim for the same.

2. In fact, there is no plea of waiver in the written statements of the contesting respondents, the 2nd defendant and the 14th defendant; nor does it appear in the written statements of any of the other defendants. Nor is there an issue regarding waiver. The lower court has however drawn the inference of waiver from the so-called admissions made by the plaintiff in the witness box. He admits that though he was living away from the tarwad house, he did not send any letter demanding maintenance; that his separate income was sufficient for the maintenance of his wife, child and himself; that he was actually saving about Rs. 200/- per month; and that no member of the tarwad living outside did ever make any claim for maintenance. From the mere delay or omission to claim maintenance no inference of waiver can be drawn. Nor is the possession of separate income by a junior member a ground for refusing maintenance