Back
Madras High Court
RAMAPRASADA RAO,RATNAVEL PANDIAN
Muniammal - Appellant
Versus
Raja, Respondent. - Respondent
Decided On : 03/04/1977
HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT - SECTION 18, 25 - MAINTENANCE - WIFE'S RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE - AGREEMENT FIXING MAINTENANCE - RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE - DISTINCTION - ENHANCED MAINTENANCE - CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES - AGREEMENT NOT TO ASK FOR MORE - VALIDITY - PUBLIC POLICY - SECTION 23, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT - APPLICABILITY - FULL SATISFACTION MEMO - CONSTRUCTION - ESTOPPEL - LIMITATION - QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE - CHARGE OVER PROPERTIES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Hindu wife, filed a suit against her husband, the respondent, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem and for the recovery of Rupees 24,000/- as arrears of past maintenance and for a charge over the plaint schedule properties. The appellant alleged that she was married to the respondent in 1931 and begot a child in 1940 which, of course, died. Thereafter, differences arose between them, which led to the appellant filing a suit for maintenance in 1943, in which she obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem, Rs. 2/- for residence and Rs. 20/- per annum for clothing, along with arrears of maintenance coming to Rs. 457-3-0. On a fresh trial after remand, a charge over the respondent's 1/12 share of the joint family properties was also granted in her favour. The appellant filed an execution petition for recovery of Rs. 1,936-11-0 and in the said execution proceedings, the charged properties were sold for Rs. 401/-. With a view to prevent the appellant from realising the balance of the decree amount, the respondent's father executed a registered will on 27-6-1953 under the original of Exhibit A-2, conveying all the properties nominally in the name of his son-in-law, one R. K. Gopalakrishna Gounder, thereby putting the appellant in a destitute position. Because of the deadlock created by the respondent, his brothers, his brother-in-law and his father and due to her helpless position, she was on 6-8-1954 made to compound her claim with them and receive Rs. 500/- in full quit of the entire decree debt of Rs. 2,000/- and also reconvey the 1/12 share purchased in Court auction in favour of the respondent's father. Thereafter, the respondent's father, on 20-3-1955 under the original of Ex. A-3 has cancelled the will under the original of Ex. A-2. On his death, the respondent and his brothers and their mother divided all the family properties on 2-7-1958 under the original of Ex. A-4 and this conduct of theirs really proves the real character of the properties as joint family properties. On 5-11-1964 the respondent has sold an extent of 49 cents out of 1 acre 28 cents comprised in S. No. 206/2 in favour of one Meda Krishna Chettiar. In the above circumstances, the appellant is entitled to maintenance under S. 18 of Act 78 of 1956, as he had abandoned her without reasonable cause and neglected her. He is also afflicted with leprosy. Hence the suit for maintenance at the rates mentioned above.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant's right to ask for enhanced maintenance is still subsisting and she is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and also a right to claim past maintenance for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit. Further, she will be entitled to a charge over the suit properties less the land of 1.95 acres sold to strangers, prior to the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was defrauded and compelled by fraud and misrepresentation, to enter satisfaction of the decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1943 ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming future maintenance ? 3. Whether the plaintiff' s claim, even if true, is barred by limitation ? 4. In any event, whether the amount claimed is far too excessive ? 5. What is the value and income from the suit properties ? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any, if so, what maintenance? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any charge and if so on what properties ? 8. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Hindu wife has a statutory right to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Act 78 of 1956). 2. An agreement fixing maintenance for the whole of her life with the specific understanding not to ask for increased maintenance will not be a bar for the plaintiff from claiming increased maintenance in view of changed circumstances. 3. Section 25 of the Act confers ample powers on the Court to alter either by varying or modifying any order fixing the amount of maintenance made by a decree of the court or by agreement subsequently if there is a material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration. 4. A decree or agreement fixing maintenance in favour of a wife or widow or other claimant is no bar to a claim for increased maintenance under this section if the circumstances justify such alteration and it is immaterial whether the decree or agreement was before or after this Act, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant had agreed not to claim higher maintenance even in changed circumstances. 5. The right conferred under this section supersedes any contract to the contrary. 6. Where a maintenance holder under an agreement has completely relinquished her right of maintenance prior to the coming into force of the Act, she cannot claim any enhanced amount under S. 25 on the ground that there are material changes in the circumstances. 7. An agreement with reference to the payment of maintenance operates as a release of the right of the party entitled to maintenance to have the amount raised and there was no release of such a right at all, and that the mere fact that the maintenance is expressed to be paid for life does not show such a release. 8. A Hindu wife who had agreed to receive maintenance at a particular rate, binding herself not to claim a higher rate even if the circumstances were to change, could maintain a suit for increase of maintenance under S. 25 of the Act. 9. The terms of S. 25 of the Act are very clear and would supersede any contract disabling the wife from asking for more. 10. A suit for enhanced maintenance due to change of circumstances is maintainable in spite of a family settlement between the parties stipulating fixed amount for maintenance. 11. S. 25 of the Act applies only to cases where right to maintenance is subsisting on the day of the Act. If the right had ceased or extinguished S. 25 has no application. 12. A distinction exists between an agreement fixing the amount of maintenance and an agreement relinquishing the right of maintenance itself.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed with costs. The respondent will pay the court-fee due to the Government.
RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. :- The plaintiff in O. S. No. 11 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupattur, North Arcot, who failed before the trial Court, is the appellant herein. She filed the said suit against her husband, the defendant, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem and for the recovery of Rupees 24,000/- as arrears of past maintenance and for a charge over the plaint schedule properties. According to the plaint allegations, she was married to the defendant in 1931 and begot a child in 1940 which, of course, died. Thereafter, differences arose between them, which led to the plaintiff filing O. S. 15 of 1943 in the trial Court for maintenance, in which she also obtained a decree dated 4-3-1944 for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem, Rs. 2/- for residence and Rs. 20/- per annum for clothing, along with arrears of maintenance coming to Rs. 457-3-0. On a fresh trial after remand, a charge over the defendant' s 1/12 share of the joint family properties (coming to 44½ cents) was also granted in her favour. The plaintiff filed E. P. 6 of 1952 for recovery of Rs. 1,936-11-0 and in the said execution proceedings, the charged properties were sold for Rs. 401/-. With a view to prevent the plaintiff from realising the balance of the decree amount, the defendant' s father executed a registered will on 27-6-1953 under the original of Exhibit A-2, conveying all the properties nominally in the name of his son-in-law, one R. K. Gopalakrishna Gounder, thereby putting the plaintiff in a destitute position. Because of the deadlock created by the defendant, his brothers, his brother-in-law and his father and due to her helpless position, she was on 6-8-1954 made to compound her claim with them and receive Rs. 500/- in full quit of the entire decree debt of Rs. 2,000/- and also reconvey the 1/12 share purchased in Court auction in favour of the defendant' s father. Thereafter, the defendant' s father, on 20-3-1955 under the original of Ex. A-3 has cancelled the will under the original of Ex. A-2. On his death, the defendant and his brothers and their mother divided all the family properties on 2-7-1958 under the original of Ex. A-4 and this conduct of theirs really proves the real character of the properties as joint family properties. On 5-11-1964 the defendant has sold an extent of 49 cents out of 1 acre 28 cents comprised in S. No. 206/2 in favour of one Meda Krishna Chettiar. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance under S. 18 of Act 78 of 1956, as he had abandoned her without reasonable cause and neglected her. He is also afflicted with leprosy. Hence the suit for maintenance at the rates mentioned above. The plaintiff claimed that her suit is not barred because of the proceedings in the previous suit which ended in 1954. The arrears of maintenance have been claimed from 21-12-1956 when Act 78 of 1956 came into force.
2. The defendant filed a written statement contending as follows : He admits that the plaintiff was married to him and that there were misunderstandings. But, he denies that he or anybody in his family wanted to get rid of the plaintiff or that they ill-treated her or drove her out of the house. As the defendant was afflicted with leprosy, the plaintiff did not want to live with him and she resorted to questionable ways of living, which the defendant' s family resented. Due to a mediation effected at the instance of the relations, the plaintiff entered into full satisfaction of the decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1943 under the original of Ex. B-2 dated 6-8-1954 after receiving a sum of Rs. 500/- having regard to the circumstances, and she agreed not to claim any future maintenance from the defendant and thus she is estopped from making the present suit claim. Now, in order to grab the property which fell to the defendant' s share in the partition after his father' s death, the plaintiff has filed this suit at the instance of the defendant' s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
