The main legal point established in the judgment is that a maintenance decree amount stands until varied by a second decree in a separate suit, and there can be no retrospective variation. The judgment also clarified the impact of partition on the creditor's rights and the principles governing charges on family property.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit which asks that the amount fixed in a maintenance decree be reduced. A genealogical tree will be necessary:

TULSIRAM | ______________________________________ | | Rameshwardaa Shaligram wife Kundanbai | (Deft. 1) | ___________________________________ | | Shrinarayan Sheonarayan wife Godawaribai wife Savitri (deft. 2) bai (Plff.)

2. Defendant 1, Kundanbai, who died during the pendency of the appeal, obtained a decree against Shaligram in the year 1895. This decree, which has been the subject-matter of much litigation in the family, will be found set out or rather the relevant portion of it will be found at p. 516 of Ghasiram v. Mt. Kundanbai

It was unfortunately (see p. 588) construed to be merely declaratory and inexecutable by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in second Appeal No. 565 of 1985. Accordingly Kundanbai was driven to filing a succession of suits for recovery of the maintenance decreed to her, the decree having declared her right (see p. 581). The decree awarded her Rs. 250 a month which was reduced by agreement to Rs. 200 a month in 1916.

When Shaligram died, the burden of maintaining Kundanbai in accordance with the decree, fell on his sons, Shrinarayan and Sheonarayan. They are said to have partitioned but as they made no arrangement for payment of Kundanbai's dues she is entitled to ignore it. In due course the sons died and were succeeded by their respective widows.

3. One of the numerous suits which Kundanbai was forced to file came up to this Court, and the decision will be found in the case we have just cited. In the course of that suit Savitribai, who was a defendant, asked that the Rs. 200 be reduced still further. The Division Bench held that the sum having been fixed in a decree could not be varied in proceedings brought by Kundanbai for the purpose of enforcing the rights declared to her by the previous decree. That could only be done in a separate suit (see pp. 536 and 587). Savitribai has accordingly brought the present suit and asks that the maintenance be reduced to Rs. 50 a month with retrospective effect from 8-2-1980 where the circumstances are said to have changed. The suit was filed in 193k

The plaint also asks that this sum be apportioned between Godavaribai and herself, and that each be made liable for half, that is for Rs. 25 a month. The plaint also asks, somewhat impudently in our opinion, seeing that Kundanbai has never been paid a pie of her money unless she sued for it and enforced her decrees by execution, that an injunction be issued against her restraining her from filing any more suits after 5-2-1930.

4. The only question we have to decide is whether the circumstances have changed in such a way as to justify any further reduction as we have said the amount was reduced from Rs. 250 a month to Rs. 200 a month by consent in 1916. The lower Court finds that this has not been proved and so dismisses the plaintiffs' suit.

5. The law on this point has been dealt with by a Division Bench in Trimbak v. Mt. Bhagu Bai,1941 ILR(Nag) 437. So far as the plaint seeks reduction with retrospective effect from 52-1930, that relief cannot, according to the previous decision, be given. The Division Bench held at p. 449 that the Court has to see whether the right to the figure stated in the plaint existed at the date when the cause of action accrued. It is true these remarks had reference to a suit by the maintenance-holder, but the principle is, we think, the same when the other side sues for reduction.

6. According to this decision, at p. 449 and again at page 537 in Ghasiram v. Mt. Kundanbai

when the figure is fixed in a decree the figure stands until it is varied by a second decree in a separate suit brought for the purpose unless the original decree on the face of it provides machinery for its own variation. Therefore, down to the bringing of the suit for, variation the decree-holder has a right to the figure fixed in the decree. It follows t