A widow is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, even though she has inherited her husband's property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT:- The defendant is the appellant. He had two sons by name Gurusami and Raghavan. There was no partition between the defendant and his sons and they constituted Mitakshara Joint Hindu family. Raghavan died sometime in 1960 leaving his widow the first plaintiff and a minor son Ulaganathan who is the second plaintiff in this case. The plaintiffs filed a suit out of which this second appeal arises claiming past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the sum of Rs. 75 claimed by them towards the maintenance was reasonable and accordingly the suit was decreed as prayed for.

2. In this second appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contended that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), the first plaintiff widow is entitled to claim a share in the joint family properties as heir of deceased Raghavan and that she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. On the other hand it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that under S. 19 of the Act, the first plaintiff is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law the appellant and that, therefore, she is entitled to the decree for maintenance.

3. It is admitted that there was no partition between the defendant and his two sons during the lifetime of Raghavan and that Raghavan died as a member of Mitakshara Hindu joint family. There is also no dispute that there was no partition subsequent to the death of Raghavan and that the defendant-appellant is in possession of the entirety of the coparcenary properties. Thus a substantial question of law arises as to the right of a widow to claim maintenance after the death of her husband from her father-in-law.

4. Prior to the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 as amended in 1938 (hereinafter called the 1937 Act), a widow who does not succeed to the estate of her husband as his heir was entitled to maintenance out of her husband's separate property as also out of the property in which he was a coparcener at the time of his death. This right was available to her against the entire coparcenary property and not merely against that portion of the property referable to the share of her deceased husband. Under the 1937 Act, when a Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of law dies intestate leaving separate property his widow was entitled in such property the same share as a son. Similarly when a Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu law died having at the time of his death an interest in Hindu joint family property his widow shall have in the property the same interest as the deceased himself had. Under Cl. (3) of S. 3 of that Act any such interest devolving on a Hindu widow shall be a limited interest known as a Hindu woman's estate, provided however, that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner. It was held in a series of cases that the acquisition by the widow of the same interest as her deceased husband in the joint family does not itself disrupt the Mitakshara joint family and that she does not by operation of the Act become a coparcener; but continues as before to be a member of the joint family. It was also held in Rathnasabapathi v. Saraswathi, 1953-2 Mad LJ 459 : (AIR 1954 Mad 307) in Gajavalli Ammal v. Narayanaswami, AIR 1962 Mad 187 and in Varahalamma v. Ammathalli, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 590, that the right to claim partition given to a widow under the 1937 Act does not negative her right to claim maintenance. It was held that it is only an enabling right and she may ask for maintenance instead of partition. But she cannot enforce both the rights simultaneously. In Sarojini Devi v. Sri Krishna, AIR 1944 Mad 401, it was further held that the share she gets on partition is in lieu of maintenance and if she can get a share in all the coparcenery property including agricultural lands, her right to maint