S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. :- The short question for determination in this appeal is whether a Hindu wife who had agreed to receive maintenance at a particular rate, binding herself not to claim a higher rate even if the circumstances were to change, could maintain a suit for increase of maintenance under Section 25 of Act 78 of 1956. The respondent is the widow of one Rama Aiyar, who took to a second wife, and later, adopted a son. In O. S. No. 329 of 1924 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, the respondent sued for maintenance from her husband. There was a compromise of that suit, by which the defendants therein agreed to pay her a sum of Rs. 85 per year; it was also stipulated that the respondent had no right to ask for anything more. A decree was passed in terms of the compromise, which charged certain properties for the due performance of the maintenance. After the passing of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the respondent came forward with a claim that the maintenance fixed under the compromise decree in O S. No. 329 of 1924 was insufficient to meet her needs, having regard to the present changed circumstances, and that she should be paid someth