MOTICHAND GIRDHARSHET Vs. CHANDRABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiff No. 1 to recover arrears of maintenance and future maintenance for herself and her three sons, and her daughter, and also marriage expenses of plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The first plaintiff was the kept mistress of one Girdhar Madhowji and the other plaintiffs were her children by him. The parties come from Alibag where they are subject to the Vyavahara Mayukha, and it is contended before us that illegitimate children under the Mayukha would not be entitled to any maintenance. However we agree with the decision of the learned Judge that it does not appear from the Mayukha that there is any direct prohibition against illegitimate children in the case of the regenerate castes being entitled to maintenance, and considering the authorities which have been referred to, it would be going too far if we were to lay down that in the Districts, which are governed by the Mayukha, illegitimate sons are not entitled to maintenance.

(2.) With regard to the quantum of maintenance, we think that as under the will of Girdhar, Chandrabai, plaintiff No. 1, was to be allowed Rs. 100 annually as maintenance, she ought to be allowed that sum now. Therefore we alter the decree of the lower Court by directing that plaintiff No. 1 should get maintenance at Rs. 100 a year. We see no reason to alter the decision of the lower Court with reference to plaintiffs Now. 2, 3 and 4.

(3.) With regard to marriage expenses allowed by the decree to plaintiffs Nos 2, 3 and 4, no authority has been cited for such an allowance. That must be deleted. 3. It was also contended that in the case of illegitimate sons the maintenance ceased when they came of age. But no authority for such a proposition has been cited, and it must be taken that the right under Hindu law of illegitimate sons to maintenance is a substitute for any right which they might otherwise have had to share in the family property. We do not think therefore that maintenance should cease when plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 come of aye. However if in future circumstances alter, we give the first defendant liberty to apply at his own expense, if he thinks he can make out a case for reducing the amount of maintenance.