Wadsworth, J.

1. The appellant sued her father-in-law for maintenance due to her as the widow of the defendants son The marriage was in 1925 at which time the plaintiff must have been a mere child. Her husband died on 7th August, 1930 There are findings of fact that the defendant had no ancestral property and that the plaintiff after her husband s death left her father-in-laws household voluntarily. In appeal it is argued that by reason of the circumstance that she was a minor at the time of her marriage and that she was taken into her father-in-laws household, she has a right to claim maintenance out of her father-in-laws self-acquired property. This contention seems to rest on no authority at all. It is true that the learned Judges who decided Meenakshi Ammal v. Rama Aiyar (1912) 24 M.L.J. 106 : I.L.R. 1912 Mad. 396 in negativing the claim to maintenance by an adult daughter-in-law against her father-in-law, refers to the possibility that special circumstances might make it equitable and just in a particular case to uphold such a claim and speak of the minority of the daughter-in-law as one such special circumstance not existing in the case with which they had to deal. But