Anantanarayanan, J.—

A.S. No. 462 of 1955 is an appeal by defendants 1 to 6 in the Court below in a suit instituted in forma pauperis by a Hindu widow for recovery of arrears of maintenance, and for enhancement of maintenance and raiment allowance. A.S. No. 492 of 1955 is an appeal by the widow upon grounds that she ought to have been granted enhanced maintenance and raiment allowance as prayed for. In this appeal, there is a memorandum of cross-objections filed by respondents 5 and 6, particularly objecting, inter alia, to any enhancement of maintenance from the date of demand by the widow (15th December, 1945), as decreed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli.

The background of facts may be briefly set forth as follows: One Sri V. Subbuswami Ayyar was a vakil of Vannarpet who had extensive properties, and he died in 1905 leaving a very rich estate. His four sons were Subramania Ayyar, Srinivasa Ayyar, Ramachandra Ayyar and Sankaranarayana Ayyar (first defendant). Ramachandra Ayyar died without issue on 1st July, 1919 leaving his widow Lakshmi Ammal (the present plaintiff). Subramania Ayyar died on 28th February, 1922, again without children, but leaving two widows behind him. Defendants 1 to 4, of whom the first defendant died pendente lite constituted the branch of Sankaranarayana, and defendants 5 and 6 similarly constituted the branch of Srinivasa Ayyar, who himself died in 1949. In 1924, Lakshmi Ammal (the present plaintiff) and the two widows of Subramania Ayyar, instituted claims for maintenance, and the relevant suits were O.S. Nos. 23, 35 and 39 of 1924. Those decrees of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli came up on appeal to the High Court, and the assets and income of the family at that time, as well as the principles upon which the widows ought to be granted maintenance and the quantum of maintenance to be determined in their cases, were dealt at length by the judgment of the Bench, Wallace and Tiruvenkatachariyar, JJ., in Srinivasa Ayyar v. Lakshmi Ammal1. We shall have occasion, subsequently, to refer to the facts as found in that judgment. It is sufficient here to state that the present plaintiff sent notices to the first defendant and his brother on 15th December, 1945, intimating them of changes in circumstances, both with regard to the increased value of assets and income, and also with regard to the sharp increase in costs of living, and claiming enhanced maintenance. Taking all the relevant factors into consideration, the plaintiff claimed in the present suit maintenance at Rs. 250 per mensem and a sum of Rs. 250 per annum as raiment allowance. The learned Subordinate Judge has now granted the plaintiff Rs. 150 per mensem instead of Rs. 100 per mensem which was the amount allowed in the previous litigation, from 15th December, 1945 (the date of her demand) till 31st December, 1953, the future maintenance of Rs. 150 per mensem with raiment allowance of Rs. 150 per annum, together with a charge in respect of these claims upon the estate.

In Srinivasa Ayyar v. Lakshmi Ammal1 already referred to, the nature of assets held by this family, and the estimate of the annual income, are matters dealt with at some length. It is to be noted that even in that litigation of the year 1924, the Subordinate Judge who tried these suits for maintenance estimated the annual income as about Rs. 30,000. The High Court observed that the right to maintenance should be determined in such cases “having regard to the extent of the assets of her husband taken over by his successor. . . .. Each case has to be decided upon its facts. Where the assets of the husband which have been taken over are comparatively small, it has been held that the widow may be awarded even the whole of the income from her husband’s share as it was at the time of his death. But in other cases, there is no fixed ratio between the income derivable from the husband’s share and the proportion thereof which should be awarded t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document