1. The question whether an agreement with reference to the payment of maintenance operates as a release of the right of the party entitled to maintenance to have the amount raised is one of construction of the particular instrument.

2. There is nothing whatever in Exhibit I to suggest that the plaintiff had agreed to release her right to increased maintenance if circumstances entitled her to it.

3. The expression that the maintenance is to be paid to her for her life cannot be construed as involving such a release. Nagamma v. Virabadra I.L.R. l7 M. 392 is a precisely similar case, though the report does not show that the agreement was for the payment of the maintenance for the life of the party there as in fact it was.

4. The concluding part of paragraph 8 of Exhibit I does not refer to the right to maintenance but to the respondents claim to certain properties about which the parties had a dispute.

5. We dismiss the appeal with costs.