Ramaswami, J.- This second appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Ellore in A.S. No. 184 of 1946 in O.S. No. 382 of 1944.

2. The facts are: The plaintiff is Bandi Narayanamma; her deceased husband Venkatarayudu and defendants 2 and 4 were the undivided sons of the first defendant Bandi Muneyya. The third defendant is a son of the second defendant. There is no dispute that all these persons constituted members of a coparcenary. This Bandi Narayanamma’s husband, Venkatarayudu, died about 1914. This widow in 1944 came with a case that she was entitled to separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per annum, for arrears of maintenance at that rate and for provisions being made for residence, utensils etc. The defendants set up the plea that the maintenance of this widow had already been settled by an arrangement with the father of the plaintiff at Rs. 100 per annum and it was being paid for several years at that rate. Therefore, the controversy between the widowed daughterin-law and the father-in-law and brothers-in-law was that the widow claimed Rs. 1,000 per annum on foot of the income of the family on the date of suit and the father-in-law and brothers-in-law sought to support the maintenance of Rs, 100 per annum on the foot of the income of the family on the date of the death of Venkatarayudu.

3. Both the lower Courts seem to have adopted a via-media course and decreed maintenance at Rs. 750 per annum apparently taking into consideration the increased income after the death of Venkatarayudu and as accruing on the date of the suit. This family income has been estimated at Rs. 7,000 on the date of suit.

4. In second appeal the learned advocate raised the point whether we should adopt as our datum-line the date of the death of the husband of the plaintiff or the date of filing of the suit which was one generation thereafter. He brings to my

† 21st September, 1951. notice conflicting decisions of this Court which are summarised in Audemma v. Varada Reddy1. In that case the conflict was fully brought into prominence by the learned advocate, Mr. K. Umamaheswaram who was appearing for the first defendant. The conflicting decisions are set out in that judgment as follows:

“On behalf of the plaintiff reliance is principally placed on the decision in Manicka Mudaliar v. Sowbagia Ammal2. Dealing with a case where a widow of a deceased member of a joint Hindu family claimed maintenance against her husband’s brother and brother’s sons who had considerably enlarged the family estate since the death of her husband, it was held that the share the husband would get if he had been alive at the time of the suit should be taken into consideration and hot the share, if any, he was entitled to on his death.”

After pointing out that the property out of which the plaintiff sought to be maintained was joint family property, that the defendants took the plaintiff’s husband’s interest by survivorship and that it formed the nucleus of the subsequent acquisition, Sankaran Nair and Spencer, JJ., held in that case that the plaintiff would get a reduced rate of maintenance if the family income diminished and that on the same principle she should be entitled to an increased rate of maintenance if the family income expanded. In Veerayya v. Chellamma3, Wadsworth, J., held following Manicka Mudaliar v. Sowbagia Ammal2 that,

“the maximum which can be awarded to a widow will be the amount of the income of the share to which her deceased husband would have been entitled had he been alive and a coparcener at the date of the suit for maintenance.”

The learned Judge notices that in Rangathayi Ammal v. Munuswami Chetti4 and Subbarayalu Chetti v. Komalavalli Thayaramma5 the income of the husband’s share was taken to be the income of the share which he would have got if a division had taken place in his lifetime, and that this was also apparently the basis of the decision in Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamelu Mangammal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document