AUNAPURNA SAPPANI Vs. JASODA SAHUANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications in revision arises out of the same order dated 22 -10 -1964 passed by the Subordinate Judge in Title Suit No. 69 of 1963 which is still pending for disposal. C.R. No. 310 of 1964 has been filed on behalf of Plaintiffs 1 and 2, but at the time of hearing that has not been pressed. Therefore it is dismissed. Then remains the other; C.R. No. 320 of 1964. That has been filed on behalf of Defendant No. 2. It is directed against the portion of the aforesaid order which reads that "The Defendant No. 2 who is an applicant for some paddy is not entitled to any as her maintenance is not binding upon those to whom the suit property has come by means of succession. Hence, her petition is rejected. It is not denied that Defendant No. 2 is the widow of Bankanidhi, the brother of Banchhanidhi. Bankanidhi died in 1921 issueless leaving behind him, his widow Annapurna, Defendant No. 2. He was joint with his brother Banchhanidhi. Therefore on his death the property came to Banchhanidhi by survivorship .Banchbanidhi died on 10 -10 -1956 leaving two widows Jasoda Plaintiff No. 1 and Satyabhama Defendant No. 1. He also left behind him his daughter Kunja Plaintiff No. 2 by his widow Jasoda and his son Gobinda (who is now dead) by his widow Satyabhama. The suit at present pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge has been filed by Jasoda and Kunja -Plaintiffs 1 and 2 for partition of the family properties. In the mean time in that suit a petition had been filed on behalf of Defendant No. 2 for maintenance. It is this petition which has been disposed of by the Subordinate Judge by the order just quoted above. The petition has been dismissed, as it appears from the order on the ground that the maintenance claimed by her is not binding upon those to whom the suit property has come by means of succession. This view is obviously wrong in law. Mulla while dealing with the widow's right of maintenance in Article 559 in his Hindu Law has stated, "A widow who does not succeed to the estate of her husband as his heir, is entitled to maintenance