Decree for maintenance cannot be altered by an application.

1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur against the petitioner/first defendant and second respondent/second defendant for maintenance and for possession of the first item in the suit properties. The Court below in the judgment dated 2. 1988 directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.250/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the life time of the first respondent towards maintenance, besides creating a charge over the half share of the second item of the suit property, towards payment of the said maintenance, and for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the first item of the suit properties, and to get possession of the same from the defendants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.68 of 1991 to recover the first item of the suit properties and possession was taken on 5. 1991. Since the said maintenance was not paid as directed, to recover the same, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the present Execution Petition in E.P.No.104 of 1995. In the said Execution Petition, the petitioner filed counter stating that after the decree there was a panchayat and in the panchayat, a sum of Rs.25, 000/-was paid, and the first respondent waived the balance amount towards maintenance. Pursuant to the said panchayat, the petitioner and the first respondent resumed cohabitation only for a period of six months, prior to the filing of the Execution Petition, and she again went out of the house and is living separately. On the basis of the abovesaid pleadings, the executing court directed the petitioner /Husband to pay the maintenance till the date of the alleged resumption of cohabitation, that is, till 4. 1990. Aggrieved, the petitioner/husband has filed the above revision.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the decree obtained by the first respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband for maintenance in O.S.No.590 of 1983 has become ineffective and so cannot be enforced. On the basis of the said submission, the learned counsel has further submitted that the executing court is not correct in entertaining the execution petition and directing the petitioner to pay the amount towards maintenance till 1990. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions in Venkayya v. Raghavamma, A.I.R. 1942, Madras 1, which is referred to in Perundevi Ammal v. Amavasikan, A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 113, and the decision in Muthukrishna Chettiar v. Meenakshi Ammal, 1958(II) M.L.J. 82.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the abovesaid decisions cannot be relied on, after the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned counsel relying on sec.25 of the said Act has submitted that any alteration or change should be only in accordance, with the said section. In support of his submission, he sought to rely on the decisions in Meenakshmi Ammal v. P.S. Muthukrishna, AIR 1961 Mad. 380, Bhupinder Singh v. Daljit Kaur, A.I.R. 1979 S.C.442 and in Dattu v. Tarabai, A.I.R. 1985 Bom. 106.

4. On the basis of the abovesaid pleadings and arguments of the respective learned counsel, and also on the basis of the finding that there was resumption of cohabitation between the parties and their living together for a period of six months, after obtaining the decree for maintenance, I have to decide the issue raised before me.

5. Under the old Hindu Law a person was under personal obligation to maintain the wife from the moment of marriage, whether he is possessed of any property or not. Though under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act of 1937, women were conferred with rights of succession, their rights of maintenance were not affected. But option was given to the Hindu widow to claim a share in the property or maintenance, whichever was more favourable to her. After the Hindu Marr