The judgment establishes the principle that under Hindu Law, the maintenance of a wife is a personal obligation, and debts binding upon the husband are also binding upon the widow. The right of residence of the widow can be subject to the nature of the debt incurred.

Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.

1. The appellant is the decree-holder in A.S. No. 16 of 1892, which he brought on a promissory note made by the deceased Naranappa against his widow and legal representative, the respondent. In execution of that decree he attached and became the purchaser of the house of the deceased Naranappa, in which the widow, the respondent, had been and was living at the time of the purchase. When he proceeded to obtain delivery of the house under Section 318 of the Civil Procedure Code, he was insisted under Section 334 by the respondent on the ground that she had a right of residence during her lifetime, and that she could not, therefore, be ejected from the residential portion of the house. The District Judge upheld her contention holding that Naranappas liability under the pro-note was incurred by him only as a surety for certain debts owing by certain relations of his to the appellant, and that it was, therefore, not incurred for the benefit of the family consisting only of Naranappa and his wife, the respondent. We are unable to follow the reasoning of the District Judge. The family consisted only of the husband and wife, and all debts which would bind the husband personally are necessarily binding upon the widow in respect of all the assets which have come to her hands as his legal representative. Even if the family had been an undivided family consisting of father and son, a debt incurred by the father only as surety and not for the benefit of the family, would bind the whole of the joint family property which may have devolved upon the son by right of survivorship Sitaramayya v. Venkatramanna I.L.R. 11 M. 373 tukarambhat v. Gangaram I.L.R. 23 B. 454 and it is difficult to see on what principle the District Judge holds that the debt is not a family debt. Under the Hindu Law the maintenance of a wife by her husband is a matter of personal obligation arising from the very existence of the relation and quite independent of the possession by the husband of any property, ancestral or self-acquired Maynes Hindu Law and Usage, 6th Edition, paragraphs 451 and 455; Savitribai v. Luximibai and Sadasiv Ganoba I.L.R. 2 B. 573 and his debts take precedence of her claim for maintenance Maynes Hindu Law, paragraph 464. The District Judge relies in support of his decision upon the cases of Venkatammal v. Andyappa I.L.R. 6 M. p. 130 and Ramanadan v. Rangammal I.L.R. 12 M. p. 260. He appears to have misapprehended the principle of those decisions. When an undivided Hindu family consists of two or more males related as father and son or otherwise, and one of them dies leaving a widow, she has a right of maintenance against the surviving co-parcener or co-parceners, quoad the share or interest of her deceased husband in the joint family property which has come by survivorship into the hands of the surviving co-parcener or co-parceners, and though such right does not in itself form a charge upon her husbands share or interest in the joint family property, yet, when it becomes necessary to enforce or preserve such right effectually, it could be made a specific charge on a reasonable portion of the joint family property, such portion of course not exceeding her husbands share or interest therein I.L.R. 12 M. 260. Such right may also in certain cases be enforced against the transferee of joint family property (vide Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act). In the 6 Madras Series case, the son after the death of the father incurred considerable debts, and on mortgage, bonds executed by him suits were brought and the properties brought to sale in execution of decrees passed in such suits. It, was not shown that the debts were incurred for purposes which would bind his mother, who on the death of her husband, had a right of maintenance against her son quoad the share of her husband in the joint family property which the son mortgaged for a debt of his own and which was brought to sale for realization of such debt. It was hel