M. Janakiraman vs Meenakshi Ammal

Venugopal, J.—The second defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff and defendants 3 to 8 are the respondents. The suit properties originally belonged to one Sambamurthi Iyer. He had a son by name Halasyam Iyer and a daughter, the first defendant herein. Plaintiff is the wife of Halasyam Iyer, who pre-deceased his father Sambamurthi Iyer. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 2 to 8 are added as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. Though the plaintiff contended in the earlier suit O.S. No. 21 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif''s Court, Mayuram that the properties were the joint family properties, and Sambamurthi Iyer, was not the exclusive owner and not competent to execute a will in respect of all his properties the suit ultimately went against her as a result of the decision of this Court is A.S. No. 19 of 1968. The plaintiff''s present case is that she was bound to be maintained by her father-in-law during his lifetime and even if it is held to be only a moral obligation on his death it ripened into a legal liability and is capable of being enforced against the estate of the said Sambamurthi Iyer, now in the hands of the first defendant as a result of the will executed by Sambamurthi Iyer. According to the plaintiff the estate of Sambamurthi Iyer is capable of yielding a net annual income of not less than 500 kalams of paddy worth Rs. 15,000 and the house at Mayuram and other non-agricultural properties will yield an annual income of Rs. 2,500. The plaintiff has claimed past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month for a period of nine months and future maintenance at the same rate of Rs. 505 per month with a charge on the B Schedule properties.

The defence is that the properties were the self-acquired properties of Sambamurthi Iyer and there were no coparcenary properties on the date of his death and the said Sambamurthi Iyer executed a will in favour of the first defendant and the will does not provide for any obligation on the part of the first defendant to maintain the plaintiff and the entire estate will yield only a net income of Rs. 5,000 and the claim for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month is excessive.

The trial Court held that (1) the plaintiff, who is the daughter-in-law of Sambamurthi Iyer, is a dependant and (2) she has not inherited any share in the estate of the deceased and by virtue of S.22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the liability to maintain the defendant from the estate of the deceased continues; (3) the expression "heir" as used in S.22 includes all those on whom the estate of the deceased devolves whether on intestacy or by means of a testamentary instrument like a will, and whoever gets the estate of the deceased or a part of it, must in proportion get along with it a corresponding obligation or burden of maintaining the dependants of the deceased and as the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the estate of Sambamurthi Iyer, by virtue of S.22 they are liable to maintain the plaintiff.

Considering the extent of the lands and the income, the trial Court awarded past maintenance for a period of nine months at the rate of Rs. 100 per month and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per month with a charge on the B Schedule properties. Against this decree and judgment of the trial Court the second defendant has preferred the present appeal.

The contentions of the learned counsel for the second defendant appellant may be summarised as under: Under S.19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the liability of the father-in-law to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law arises only if he is in possession of coparcenary properly. No liability arises when the father-in-law is not in possession of coparcenary property. The statutory liability of the father-in-law to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law in the event of his having coparcenary property passed on his death to the heirs inheriting his property. This is what is provided under S.22. If there is no statutory liability for the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law the heirs taking his property cannot be saddled with any such obligation. S.22 does not create any independent statutory obligation for the father-in-law to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law. The statutory obligation is created only under S.19 and if he dies leaving no coparcenary property his heirs inheriting his property are under no legal obligation to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law. A harmonious construction of Ss.19 to 22 can only lead to such interpretation. Otherwise we see the anomaly of a father-in-law having no coparcenary property and having no legal obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law during his lifetime and yet, after his death, his heirs taking his property are statutorily made liable to maintain the daughter-in-law. The legislature would not have intended such an anomalous situation and an interpretation leading to an illogical conclusion should not be favoured. It follows that as the father-in-law died without leaving any coparcenary property, his heirs inheriting his self-acquired property, namely, the appellant is under no obligation to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law.

The contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents can be summarised as under: As laid down in a decision of this Court reported in N. Appavu Udayon and another v. Nallammal1 and a decision of the Orissa High Court reported in Mst. Rupa Guantiani and another v. Mst. Sriyabati2 under the old traditional Hindu law, the moral obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law out of his self acquired property ripens into a legal obligation after his death and this is sought to be given effect to by Ss. 19 to 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. S.19 creates a statutory liability on the father-in-law during his lifetime while S.22 creates the liability on his death when his heirs inherit his properties. The contention that the liability is created only under Ss.19 and 22 can be invoked only when there is a preexisting liability under S.19 cannot be accepted. In support of this contention the learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Mysore High Court reported in Mukta Bai and others v. Kamalaksha and others1.

S.19 casts a statutory liability on the father-in-law not having coparcenary property to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law. S.22 provides that a dependant of a male or a female deceased Hindu, who has not obtained any share in the estate of the deceased dying after the commencement of the Act, is entitled to maintenance from those to whom the estate of the deceased person has passed. Thus S.22(1) creates a right in favour of a dependant to be maintained out of the estate of a person who dies after the commencement of the Act. For a person to be maintained out of the estate of the deceased the two requirements under S.22 (1) are (a) the person claiming maintenance must be a dependant of the deceased and (b) the deceased should have died after the commencement of the Act. S.21 defines ''''dependants" and a widowed daughter-in-law is a dependant of her deceased father-in-law. Thus, Ss.19 and 22 create two different kinds of liabilities on the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in law at two different points of time. Under S.19 the liability is during the lifetime of the father-in-law and when he is in possession of coparcenary property. Under S.22 the liability arises after the lifetime of the father-in-law and a widowed daughter-in-law claims maintenance as a dependant. The claim is made against the heirs inheriting the property of her deceased father-in-law. It is immaterial whether the property inherited by the heirs is coparcenary property or self-acquired property of the deceased. From the above analysis of Ss.19 and 22 it is obvious that the plea that no statutory liability is created under S.22 and the liability is created only under S.19 has to be straightway rejected. The statutory liability for maintenance created under Ss.19 and 22 are invoked by the widowed daughter-in-law at different points of time against different persons and in different capacities. When there is a statutory liability for the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law his heirs inheriting his property are automatically liable to maintain the widowed daughter in law. No statutory provision is required to cover such a contingency. The plea that S.22 was enacted to cover only such a contingency is not warranted by a plain reading of S.22 Such an interpretation unduly narrows the scope of S.22, which is not warranted by the language employed in S.22. The decision of the Mysore High Court in Mukta Bai and others v. Kamalaksha and others1 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent fully supports the above interpretation. In view of the decision in Gulzara Singh v. Smt. Tej; Kaur2 the defendant''s liability is not included by use of the expression "heir" in S.22 flu finding of the trial Court that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the estate of Sambamurthi Iyer and by virtue of S.22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, they are liable to maintain the plaintiff who is a dependant of Sambamurthi Iyer, has to be confirmed.

The next question for consideration is regarding the quantum of maintenance Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rate of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is excessive and unreasonable Learned counsel for the respondent, who has also filed a memorandum of cross-objections contended that even the maintenance awarded by the trial Court is too low and it should by further increased.

According to the plaintiff, the agricultural lands would yield a net annual income of Rs. 15,000 and the house at Mayuram and other non-agricultural properties will yield an annual net income of Rs. 2,500. The contention of the defendants is that in the earlier suit the Commissioner appointed has submitted a report giving the average income from the properties at Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5000. As the prices of agricultural commodities have gone up and as the urban property is fetching a higher rate of rent, the trial court''s estimate that the net income can be arrived at Rs. 7,500 cannot be stated to be excessive or unreasonable. The plaintiff is the only person to be maintained as on date from the estate of the deceased. Her only daughter had been given in marriage and her son-in-law is stated to be well placed in life. The plaintiff is accustomed to ordinary way of living and considering the net income of the properties, the trial Court awarding future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per month and past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month for nine months, appears to be quite reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal as well as the memorandum of cross-objections stand dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. The Court fee payable on the memorandum of cross objections filed in forma pauperis has to be borne by the plaintiff-first respondent.