The wife's right to maintenance is a personal right and cannot be enforced against the husband's properties. Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the case of a wife's right to maintenance.

B. K. RAY, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for creating a charge upon the properties described in schedule B of the plaint for their maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50-00 per month and for Rs. 2,000-00 towards the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2. The Plaint case, in short is, as follows: plaintiff No. 1 is the wife and plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of defendant No. 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are first cousins. Defendant No. 1 is separate in mess and property from defendant No. 2 since the time of their fathers. The properties described in Schedule B of the plaint belong to defendant No. 2 alone. Defendant no. I wanted his son to be adopted by defendant No. 2. Plaintiff No. 1 opposed this and hence defendant No. 1 bore a grudge against plaintiff No. 1. Defendant no. 1, therefore, instigated defendant No. 2 to ill-treat the plaintiffs and to stop maintaining them. Both defendants Nos: 1 and 2 are opium addicts. Under the influence of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed in respect of the entire B schedule properties in favour of defendant No. 1 on 24-6-63. This sale deed is a collusive and sham transaction not sup-ported by consideration. Defendant No. 2 thereafter abandoned the plaintiffs and started living with defendant No. 1 without providing maintenance for the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 took the sale deed from defendant No. 2 with full knowledge that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance and to the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2 out of the income of the B Schedule properties. Hence, the said Properties are liable to be charged for the plaintiff's maintenance and for the marriage expenses of plaintiff no. 2. Defendant No. 1 therefore, is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50. 00 per month to the plaintiffs for their maintenance and to pay Rs. 2,000. 00 for the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2 out of the income of the properties covered by the sale deed in his favour. On these allegations the plaintiffs claim the relief as mentioned above.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. T alone contested the suit and defendant No. 2 remained ex parte.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 in his written statement states as follows: Defendant No. 2 has 6 daughters out of whom 5 are already married. The Properties described in schedule B are situate in flood-affected area and the income therefrom was not sufficient to meet the maintenance expenses of defdt. No. 2 and of his family and to meet the marriage expenses of the 5 daughters of defendant No. 2. Defendant no. 2, therefore incurred loans. To repay the loans, he entered into an agreement with one Laxmidhar Behera to sell the suit lands for Rs. 3. 200. 00 and received Rs. 1,500. 00 as advance. Therefore defendant No. 2 sold the suit properties to defendant No. 1 on receipt of consideration of Rs. 3,500. 00 by two registered sale deeds D/- 24-6-1963 and 28-6-1963. Thereafter defendant No. 2 wanted to go away to the place of his father-in-law, but he could not do so immediately and lived in the suit house on payment of an annual rent of Rs. 24. 00. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are living together and the latter is maintaining them. Defendant No. 1 is a bona fide Purchaser for value without notice that the properties purchased by him are subject to a charge of maintenance and to the charge of marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2. With these allegations dismissal of the suit is claimed.

( 5 ) THE trial court found that even after selling away the suit properties defendant no. 2 is running a grocery shop and is maintaining the plaintiffs out of its income. It also found on the evidence of plaintiff No. 1 that plaintiff No. 2 had already been given in marriage, and therefore, held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the marriage expenses as claimed by them. The plaintiff's story that defendant No. 2 is not maintaining and has abandoned them was not accepted by the t