Skip to content


Honamma Vs. Timannabhat and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR1Bom559
AppellantHonamma
RespondentTimannabhat and anr.
Excerpt:
act xxi of 1850 - hindu widow--loss of caste--incontinence--forfeiture of rights or property--starving maintenance. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme..........ii, section 1, pl. 37, 38--support the position that even an incontinent widow is entitled to a bare maintenance. steele, p. 42, pl. 25, 1st edn., and p. 36, 2nd edn, and 1 stra. h.l. 157; the notes of mr. ellis, at pp. 32 and 344 of 2 stra. h.l.; and norton's l.c., p. 37, are to the same effect. the maintenance allotted to the present defendant in appeal 102 of 1867 was nothing more than what is called a bare maintenance, and so it was described by mr. west in his judgment. we cannot, in this suit, take into consideration the question whether or not the respondent, by reason of his not having family property, was liable to supply even a bare maintenance to the defendant. the only question before us is whether since she obtained an award of maintenance in appeal 102 of 1867, her.....
Judgment:

Michael Westropp, C.J.

1. We adhere to the opinion expressed in Parvati v. Bhiku 4 Bom. H.C. Rep. 25, that since Act XXI of 1850 came into force, mere loss of caste does not occasion a forfeiture of rights or property. We, therefore, proceed to consider this case independently of the fact that the defendant has been put out of caste. On the findings of the learned District Judge we must regard the defendant as guilty of incontinence since the date of the decree in appeal No. 102 of 1867, made by Mr. West, when Judge of Kanara, and affirmed here in special appeal. The Judge in the present suit says that it is asserted that she is still living in that condition; but he does not positively find that allegation to be true--and he does state that she resides with her mother-in-law.

2. The Hindu law books of especial force in this Presidency--Mayukha, Ch. IV, Section 8, pl. 9; Mitakshara, Ch. II, Section 1, pl. 37, 38--support the position that even an incontinent widow is entitled to a bare maintenance. Steele, p. 42, pl. 25, 1st Edn., and p. 36, 2nd Edn, and 1 Stra. H.L. 157; the notes of Mr. Ellis, at pp. 32 and 344 of 2 Stra. H.L.; and Norton's L.C., p. 37, are to the same effect. The maintenance allotted to the present defendant in appeal 102 of 1867 was nothing more than what is called a bare maintenance, and so it was described by Mr. West in his judgment. We cannot, in this suit, take into consideration the question whether or not the respondent, by reason of his not having family property, was liable to supply even a bare maintenance to the defendant. The only question before us is whether since she obtained an award of maintenance in appeal 102 of 1867, her incontinence has disentitled her to a continuance of the bare maintenance then allotted to her. The authorities to which we have referred, lead us to the conclusion that she is not so disentitled. The case of Rajah Pirthee Singh v. Ranee Raj Kower 20 Cal. W.R. 21, relied upon by the District Judge, turned upon the question of the consequences of a widow leaving the family house, and not upon the effect of incontinence upon her maintenance. The observations, in that case, of her Majesty's Privy Council as to loss of maintenance in consequence of unchastity, we think, referred to maintenance as a dives, not to a starving maintenance, as a bare maintenance has been sometimes denominated. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Subordinate Judge, but direct the parties respectively to bear their own costs of the suit and both appeals.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //