The main legal point established is that under the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, a widow's remarriage forfeits her right to maintenance, and any obligations, such as a promissory note debt, must still be honored by the defendants.

Wadsworth, J.

1. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note which was executed in circumstances about which there is no dispute. The plaintiff is the maternal uncle of a child widow and was acting as her guardian after the death of her husband. In that capacity, he opened negotiations with the coparceners of the deceased husband of the widow and there was an arbitration and a series of documents came into existence on the same date. The plaintiff as guardian of the widow executed a release deed Ex. II. It recites that in consideration of the execution of a promissory note for Rs. 2,500 in favour of the plaintiff, a fixed amount in lieu of maintenance payable to the widow during all her life time, she surrenders her rights in the estate of her husbands coparceners and renounces all claims which she might have as a result of any change of circumstances, etc., and releases her right to maintenance. On the same date, there is Ex. 1 which is a deed of indemnity executed by the plaintiff. It recites the receipt of Rs. 2,500 in the shape of a promissory note, undertakes to get the widow to ratify the release deed as soon as she attains her majority and to hold the defendants blameless in the event of any claim by her. On the same date we have also Ex. A, the suit promissory note, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, which recites, "We agreed to pay you the sum of Rs. 2,500 being the maintenance amount for the widow". On this promissory note, there is an endorsement of payment of Rs. 1,250. The suit for the balance due on the promissory note was presented on 24th July, 1933. On the 9th September, 1933, after the filing of the suit, the widow executed Ex. B, in which she ratifies the action of her guardian in releasing her maintenance right as the plaintiff had undertaken in Ex. I that she should ratify his action. On 14th September, 1933, the widow remarried.

2. It is not now contended that the suit by the promisee under Ex. A is incompetent because of the absence from the array of parties of the widow who is the beneficiary under the arrangement whereby the promissory note came into existence. Such a contention would clearly be untenable. It is however contended that the District Judge was right in holding that by virtue of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, the widow having by her marriage forfeited her right to maintenance from her husbands estate, the balance due under the promissory note executed in lieu of maintenance to the plaintiff cannot be claimed. The relevant words of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act are as follows:

All rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husbands property by way of maintenance... shall upon her remarriage cease and determine as if she had then died.

3. It is contended that the claim for the unpaid amount due under this promissory note is in fact a fight to claim maintenance out of the property of the deceased husband. It seems to me that this contention is unreasonable on the facts of the case. On the date of Ex. A, there was, in my opinion, a complete settlement of the widows claim to maintenance for all time and a composition whereby in lieu of an uncertain liability for a recurring payment towards maintenance, the defendants executed a promissory note for a lump sum. The nature of this transaction can be seen from the nature of the release deed executed on behalf of the widow Ex. II, which expressly puts an end to any interest which the widow might have in the property of her deceased husband in consideration of a payment which is treated as having already been made by the execution of the promissory note; that is to say, there is a completed contract whereby the coparceners of the deceased husband, taking into consideration the uncertainty of the future claims which the widow might make, compounded for those claims by a fixed sum which was treated as having been paid by the substitution for the actual payment of a p