This is an unfortunate dispute between a wife and her husband, appellant and respondent respectively in this second appeal. The spouses have been living apart since 1936 owing to misunderstandings and their three minor daughters have been living with the mother since then. The wife sued her husband and obtained a decree for the maintenance of herself and her children. The eldest daughter though a minor, attained marriageable age in 1942 and was got married by the mother, the father having taken no interest in the affair. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the wife against her husband for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000 stated to have been spent by her in connection with the marriage of the daughter. The suit was decreed by the District Munsiff. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that though the wife might have spent Rs. 1,000 in connection with the marriage, she could not recover it from her husband, he being under no legal obligation to get his daughter married. The wife has therefore preferred this second appeal.

In Sundari Ammal v. Subramania Aiyar1 , Davies and Bhashyam Aiyangar, JJ., held that a Hindu father was under no legal obligation to get his daughter married and that a wife who expended money on her daughter’s marriage in circumstances like the present, was not entitled to recover it from her husband. The learned Judges followed an earlier decision of a Bench of this Court in Seshammal v. Muniswami Mudaliar2which held that a Hindu father was under a moral but not a legal obligation to get his daughter married. In Subbayya v. Anantaramayya3 Ramesam, J., referring to these decisions observed,

“In those cases it does not appear that the father was a member of the joint family or had ancestral property. The cases were discussed on the footing of the general obligation of a father to maintain or marry his daughter and it was held that the father was not under an obligation to marry his daughter. On the other hand, it may be said that at least among Brahmins and Vaisyas with whom pre-puberty marriage is compulsory as a religious injunction, the father is legally bound to marry his daughter.”

It may not be possible to support this last observation of the learned Judge on the grounds stated by him, because as the combined result of Act XIX of 1929, modern economic conditions and a widespread disapprobation of infant marriages, prepuberty marriages, are now rare even amongst Brahmins and Vaisyas. But this is not to say that the old family ties have snapped or that parents have ceased to regard the marriage of their daughters as their responsibility. In the latest edition of Mulla’s Hindu Law (page 530), it is stated that the decision in Sundari Ammal v. Subramania Aiyar1 , requires reconsideration, without, however, stating any reasons for that opinion, beyond a reference to Subbayya v. Anantaramayya3 , which, however, dealt with the liability of joint family property to meet the expenses of the marriage of the daughters of the family. It has now. been authoritatively held by the Judicial Committee that in the case of an unmarried daughter,

“her right to maintenance and marriage expenses out of joint family property is in lieu of a. share on partition; a provision should accordingly be made for her marriage expenses in the decree (for partition)”, Rajagopala Aiyar v. Venkatarama Aiyar4 .

Where however, there is no joint family property, is the father under a legal obligation to have the marriage of his daughters performed or is the duty merely a moral one as decided by this Court? It is true as pointed out by Mr. Vepa Sarathi for the appellant, that popular sentiment might not wholly endorse the view taken by the two decisions of this court already cited and a learned Bengal lawyer of the orthodox school has expressed his dissent from the decisions of this court in strong language. Sircar on Hindu Law, 6th edition, pages 151 and 155. It is true that according to the Hindu law-giver