GOWARDHAN SHEOCHARAN Vs. GANGABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this first appeal arises was filed by the respondent Mst. Gangabai for (a) maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month; (b) arrears of maintenance rs. 6,000/- for twelve years be fore suit; and (c) Rs. 5,000/- cash to enable her to build a house for her residence. The trial Court decreed the claim at Rs. 75/- per per month and allowed a house at Mahasamund for her residence. The defendants have fiied this appeal praying for re duction of future maintenance to Rs. 50/- a month, for disallowing arrears of maintenance and for reduction of the amount from the date of suit till the filing of appeal. They have also stated that the house in Mahasamund be not given for her separate maintenance. The plaintiff Mst. Ganga bai has filed a cross-objection for raising the amount of future maintenance to Rs. 200/- a month and the arrears to Rs. 50/- a month. She has also claimed rs. 5,000/- for a separate house. This judgment governs the disposal of the appeat and the cross-objection.

(2.) ONE Kapil died in 1940 leaving behind his son Sheocharan (defendant No. 1)and the plaintiff Mst. Gangabai, who is the widow of his predeceased son Dauwa. He left behind houses and lands in three villages as also movables as detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff states that the income from the properties left was about rs. 25,000/- a year out of which she is entitled to maintenance. She brought the present suit for reliefs which have already been stated above.

(3.) THE defendants stated that when Dauwa died in 1932, there were lands and houses in villages Saraipali and Mahasamund. The lands in Kanharpuri were acquired subsequently, though with the aid of the joint family income. They pleaded that Kanharpuri lands should be excluded from consideration in fixing maintenance. Sheocharan (defendant No. 1) and his sons had a partition in 1955 and at that time two-thirds of the lands at Saraipali were given to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of her claim for maintenance. No further maintenance can therefore be claimed. The extent of the joint family property was also denied.