BHARGAVA, J.-1. The defendant, Smt. Ramabai, against whom the plaintiff respondent Mirabai obtained a decree for payment of monthly amount of maintenance at Rs 60 from the date of institution of her suit and for payment of Rs. 5,000 on account of her marriage expenses, from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in Civil suit No. 44-A of 1958, has filed this appeal.

2. The facts are these Admittedly, Narayan Rao Dandige owned the properties mentioned in the schedules attached to the plaint. By his first wife, he had a daughter who is the appellant Smt. Ramabai, and a son Nilkarth. By his another wife, Smt. Gangubai, he had a daughter who is the respondent in this appeal. Narayan Rao died on 13-6-1942 at Nagpur. Nilkanth being his only son inherited the entire property of his father. He was minor at the time of his, father's death. Therefore, the property was managed by his step-mother Smt. Gangubai on his behalf. Smt. Gangubai remarried in the month of August 1948; Before the remarriage, she executed a deed of release (Ex. D-1), dated 17-1.1948. By the said document, she relinquished all her rights in the property of her said husband. It is stated in (Ex. D-1) that for bringing up her minor daughter Mirabai and for purposes of her education and marriage, she had kept with her those ornaments only which were presented to her at the time of her marriage with she deceased Narayan Rao Dandige and that only an amount of Rs. 100 per year shall be paid to her by Nilkanth for bringing up the plaintiff Mirabai up to her attaining the age of 16 years or up to the time of her marriage if her marriage was performed earlier.

3. Nilkanth died on 12-8-1948. The defendant Ramabai inherited the estate as his real sister after his death.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff Mirabai claimed past arrears of maintenance a: the rate of Rs. 125 per month for three years amounting to Rs. 4,500 and future maintenance, at the same rate. She also claimed a decree for Rs. 10,000 against the, defendant for her marriage expenses. It was also claimed that the maintenance allowance be declared a charge over the property of Nilkanth in the possession of the defendant.

5. The trial Court only granted a decree for her maintenance at Rs. 60 per month from the date of institution of the suit and Rs. 3,000 for her marriage expenses and declared that the maintenance amount shall be a charge over the property in the possession of the defendant which she got from her brother, the deceased Nilkanth. This appeal is directed against this decree of the trial Court.

6. The first contention raised by Shri P. R. Padhye, learned counsel for the appellant, is that as the maintenance was claimed after the Hindu Adoptions and Mc1intenance Act, 1956 (No. LXXVII of 1956), hereinafter called the Act, came into force, the question of grant of maintenance to the plaintiff-respondent would be governed by sections 21 and 22 of the Act and as the appellant was not a dependant of Nilkanth within the meaning of section 21 of the Act where 'dependant' were defined, she was not entitled to any maintenance. The point raised by the learned counsel is really that section 4 of the Act makes the Act retroactive. It is urged that whatever rights accrued to the plaintiff under the Hindu Law were extinguished by reason of section 4 of the said Act. It is contended that this result blowed from clause (a) of section 4 which reads as under:-

"4. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,-

(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; ….

(b) * * *

7. In our opinion, this contention is without any substance. Sections 21 and 22 of the Act do not in any way abridge the pre-existing rights of the maintenance holders and these provisions of the Act are prospective and apply only to the,