( 1 ) THE suit out of which this first appeal arises was filed by the respondent Mst. Gangabai for (a) maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month; (b) arrears of maintenance rs. 6,000/- for twelve years be fore suit; and (c) Rs. 5,000/- cash to enable her to build a house for her residence. The trial Court decreed the claim at Rs. 75/- per per month and allowed a house at Mahasamund for her residence. The defendants have fiied this appeal praying for re duction of future maintenance to Rs. 50/- a month, for disallowing arrears of maintenance and for reduction of the amount from the date of suit till the filing of appeal. They have also stated that the house in Mahasamund be not given for her separate maintenance. The plaintiff Mst. Ganga bai has filed a cross-objection for raising the amount of future maintenance to Rs. 200/- a month and the arrears to Rs. 50/- a month. She has also claimed rs. 5,000/- for a separate house. This judgment governs the disposal of the appeat and the cross-objection.

( 2 ) ONE Kapil died in 1940 leaving behind his son Sheocharan (defendant No. 1)and the plaintiff Mst. Gangabai, who is the widow of his predeceased son Dauwa. He left behind houses and lands in three villages as also movables as detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff states that the income from the properties left was about rs. 25,000/- a year out of which she is entitled to maintenance. She brought the present suit for reliefs which have already been stated above.

( 3 ) THE defendants stated that when Dauwa died in 1932, there were lands and houses in villages Saraipali and Mahasamund. The lands in Kanharpuri were acquired subsequently, though with the aid of the joint family income. They pleaded that Kanharpuri lands should be excluded from consideration in fixing maintenance. Sheocharan (defendant No. 1) and his sons had a partition in 1955 and at that time two-thirds of the lands at Saraipali were given to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of her claim for maintenance. No further maintenance can therefore be claimed. The extent of the joint family property was also denied.

( 4 ) THE trial Court held that the lands at Kanharpuri also formed part of the joint family property. The income of the family was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- a year. The settlement of maintenance claim as pleaded by the defendants was not found proved. In the result, the claim was decreed as stated above.

( 5 ) THE first point which Shri A. P. Sen has raised in support of the appeal is that there is neither legal nor moral liability on the defendant to maintain the plaintiff. This is based on the fact that there was a partition between Sheocharan and his sons in 1955 and the learned counsel contends that by virtue of the partition there is nothing left now in the hands of the members of the joint family by way of joint family property to support a claim for maintenance. This contention is obviously without any substance. The right of a widow for maintenance legally arises because of the fact that her husband left an interest in the joint family property at the time of his death, and the coparceners of the family by merely dividing the joint family property in a partition cannot give a go-by to her right. In the instant case, Sheocharan, the father of the other defendants, had obtained by survivorship the whole of the joint family property, including the share of the plaintiff's husband. He was, therefore, legally bound to maintain her under the hindu Law. The mere fact that he has given his sons shares separately in the joint family property is of no consequence.

( 6 ) IT was also contended by Shri Sen that as the present suit was filed after the hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, that Act applies to the right of the plaintiff for maintenance. He referred to Sections 21 and 22 and pointed out that the liability to maintain a widow is only on the father-in-law. Consequently, the defendant Sheocharan as husband's brother was not liable to maintain