S SANKARANARAYANA IYER Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. No. 462 of 1955 is an appeal by defendants 1 to 6 in the Court below in a suit instituted in forma pauperis by a Hindu widow for recovery of arrears of maintenance, and for enhancement of maintenance and raiment allowance. A. S. No. 492 of 1955 is an appeal by the widow upon grounds that she ought to have been granted enhanced maintenance and raiment allowance as prayed for. In this appeal there is a memorandum of cross-objections filed by respondents 5 and 6, particularly objecting, inter alia, to any enhancement of maintenance from the date of demand by the widow (15-12-1945), as decreed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli.

(2.) The background of facts may be briefly set forth as follows: One Sri V. Subbuswami Aiyar was a vakil of Vannarpet who had extensive properties, and he died in 1905 leaving a very rich estate. His four sons were Subramania Aiyar, Srinviasa Aiyar, Ramachandra Aiyar and Sankaranarayana Aiyar (first defendant). Ramachandra Aiyar died without issue on 1-7-1919 leaving his widow Lakshmi Ammal (the present plaintiff). Subramania Aiyar died on 28-21922, again without children, but leaving two widows behind him. Defendants 1 to 4, of whom the first defendant died pendente lite, constituted the branch of Sankaranarayana, and defendants 5 and 6 similarly constituted the branch of Srinivasa Aiyar, who himself died in 1949. In 1924, Lakshmi Ammal (the present plaintiff) and the two widows of Subramania Aiyar, instituted claims for maintenance, and the relevant suits were O. S. Nos. 23, 35 and 39 of 1924. Those decrees of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli came up on appeal to the High Court, and the assets and income of the family at that time, as well as the principles upon which the widows ought to be granted maintenance and the quantum of maintenance to be determined in their cases, were dealt at length by the judgment of the Bench, Wallace and Tiruvenkata Achariyar JJ. in Srinivasa Ayyar v. Lakshmi Ammal, 54 Mad LJ 530: (AIR 1928 Mad 216). We shall have occasion, subsequently, to refer to the facts as found in that judgment. It is sufficient here to state that the present plaintiff sent notices to the first defendant and his brother on 15-12-1945, intimating them of changes in circumstances, both with regard to the increased value of assets and income, and also with regard to the sharp increase in costs of living, and claiming enhanced maintenance. Taking all the relevant factors into consideration, the plaintiff claimed in the present suit maintenance at Rs. 250/- per mensem and a sum of Rs. 250/- per annum as raiment allowance. The learned Subordinate Judge has now granted the plaintiff Rs. 150/- per mensem instead of Rs. 100/ per mensem which was the amount allowed in the previous litigation, from 1512-1945 (the date of her demand) till 31-12-1953, the future maintenance of Rs. 150/- per mensem with raiment allowance of Rs. 150/- per annum, together with a charge in respect of these claims upon the estate.

(3.) In 54 Mad LJ 530: (AIR 1928 Mad 216) already referred to, the nature of assets held by this family, and the estimate of the annual income, are matters dealt with at some length. It is to be noted that even in that litigation of the year 1924, the Subordinate Judge who tried those suits for maintenance estimated the annual income as about Rs. 30,000/-. The High Court observed that the right to maintenance should be determined in such cases.