The moral obligation of a father to support his offspring extends to a widowed daughter who is penniless, as established by the decision in Janki v. Nand Ram I.L.R(1888) All. 194 and supported by relevant cases and texts on Hindu Law.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this appeal is whether a Hindu widow is bound to maintain out of her husbands estate her husbands widowed daughter when the daughter is without means and her husbands family is unable to support her. The appellant is the widow of one Sadasiva Rao, who died on the 13th January, 1930. The respondent is the daughter of Sadasiva Rao by his first wife, who pre-deceased him. The respondent carried one Rama Rao, who died in the month of May, 1932. Sadasiva Rao was a man of considerable property, but Rama Rao was entirely without means and in consequence Sadasiva Rao was compelled to maintain the respondent and her husband from the time of her marriage up to the time of his death. Rama Rao never acquired property and his family had none. In 1934 the respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly for a decree for maintenance against her step-mother on whom had devolved her fathers estate. The District Munsif held that the widow was bound to maintain her stepdaughter out of Sadasiva Raos property and gave a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem, but he directed that if the parties lived together the respondent should receive only a sum of Rs. 5 per mensem. This decree was confirmed by the District Judge on appeal. The widow has now appealed to this Court.

2. The ancient texts of Hindu law do not place upon a father a legal obligation to maintain his married daughter, but they do indicate that he is under a moral obligation to support her if she is in want. The original texts are all collected in the late Golap Chandra Sastris work on Hindu Law (8th Edition, page 522) but it is not necessary to quote them all. The following are sufficient to show that from the earliest times Hindu La*w has recognized that there is a moral obligation on a father to support his offspring:

(1) The father, the mother, the Guru (an elderly relation worthy of respect), a wife, an offspring, poor dependents, a guest, and a religious mendicant are declared to be the group of persons who are to be maintained - cited in Srikrishnas commentary on Dayabhaga.

(2) It is declared by that the aged mother and father, the chaste wife, and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds - cited in the Mitakshara while dealing with gifts.

(3) (A widow inheriting her husbands estate) should honour with food and presents (for their benefit) the husbands paternal uncle (and the like) venerable elderly relation, daughters son, sisters son, and maternal uncle, as well as aged and helpless persons, guests and females (of the family) - Vrihaspathi cited in Dayabhaga, xi, i. 64.

3. These translations are accepted as being correct. The texts carry the moral obligation far beyond the limit which could be accepted in modern times, but it cannot with reason be said that there is no moral obligation on a father to support a daughter who has no other means of support, even when she has left his family on marriage. A mere moral obligation cannot, of course, be made the basis of a suit, but here the estate of the person on whom there was a moral obligation to support the respondent has passed to the appellant and the Court is called upon to decide whether the principle laid down in Janki v. Nand Ram I.L.R.(1888)All. 194 , extends to the case of a widowed daughter who has no means of subsistence.

4. In Janki v. Nand Ram I.L.R.(1888)All. 194 , a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that a father was under a moral, though not a legal, obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law during his lifetime and to make provision out of his self-acquired property for, her maintenance after his death and that the moral obligation became by reason of his self-acquired property having come by inheritance into the hands of his surviving son a legal obligation, enforceable by suit against the son and against the property which he had inher