Maintenance of Hindu wife.

The third and fourth defendants are the appellants from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem by which he confirmed the decree of the trial Court for maintenance in favour of the plaintiff with a charge over the plaint A and B Schedule properties except for the modification he made of the quantum of maintenance. On 11th February, 1959, the first defendant who is the husband of the plaintiff, sold the plaint A Schedule properties to the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 22,500. On 16th December, 1959, the plaintiff sued her husband for maintenance and for a charge over the A and B Schedule properties in respect of it.

Mr. Ramamurti Iyer contends that the Courts below were wrong in granting a charge in favour of the plaintiff over the plaint A Schedule properties. He says that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which is an amending and codifying law on the subject of maintenance, lays down the entire law as to that matter so that the right to follow property alienated by a person liable to maintain dependents out of a deceased’s properties, with notice on the part of the alienees, is now confined to dependents as defined in that Act, and that, therefore, a wife who is not a dependent under the Act, is not entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act any longer. On that basis he argues that the charge given by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff over the A Schedule properties cannot be maintained.

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is no doubt an Act to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. Chapter III of this Act contains provisions relating to maintenance of wife, widowed daughter-in-law, children, aged parents and certain categories of persons included in the definition of dependents. The chapter also provides for the determination of the amount of maintenance and as to when maintenance will be a charge on the estate of a deceased and the effect of transfer of property on right to maintenance. Section 18 deals with a wife’s right of maintenance and says that a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.. This provision is of course subject to the other provisions of the section. Under section 19 a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to be maintained from the estate of her husband or her father or mother as the case may be. Section 21 mentions certain categories of persons as coming within the definition of dependents and a wife is not one such person. Section 22 provides for maintenance of dependents as defined by section 21. Section 28 says:

“Where a dependent has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or any part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of the right.”

This section has been framed on the pattern of section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Being an amending and codifying law, says Mr. Ramamurti Iyer, the Act should he taken to be exhaustive on the subject-matter and applying this principle, he says, section 28 contains the entire law relating to the effect of transfer of property in relation to right to maintenance. He deduces, therefore, that since this section covers only dependents and should be taken to be exhaustive, a wife is not entitled to follow up the property of her husband in case it is alienated, be it with notice of her, right to maintenance. Learned Counsel does not dispute that if it were not so, section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act would cover the case of a wife.

As to the principle of construction of an amending and codifying law, there cannot be any doubt. The Privy Council in Narendranath Circar v. Kamalabasini Dasi1quoting from Bank of England v. Vaglian B