Skip to content


Parvatibai Bhagirath Teli Vs. Chatru Limbaji Teli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 328 of 1910
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR1023; 12Ind.Cas.708
AppellantParvatibai Bhagirath Teli
RespondentChatru Limbaji Teli
Excerpt:
.....of maintenance--demand and refusal. ;in order that a hindu widow may be entitled to arrears of maintenance, it is not necessary to prove demand and refusal.;ambabai v. ramchandra (1895) p.j. p. 44, followed.;a hindu widow is not bound to reside in her deceased husband's family house, and does not forfeit her right to maintenance by going to reside elsewhere, unless she leaves the house for an improper purpose.;girianna v. honama (1890) i.l.r. 15 bom, 236, followed. - - on second appeal before us the only question argued has been whether the arrears were properly refused in consequence of failure to prove demand and refusal. 'it is now well established that a hindu widow is not bound to reside in her deceased husband's family house, and does not forfeit her right to..........to reside elsewhere, unless she leaves the house for an improper purpose.' no such ground has, however, been made out in this suit.2. we must, therefore, modify the decree by granting the plaintiff four years' arrears of maintenance prior to suit at the rate of one rupee a month with proportionate costs of this appeal.
Judgment:

Hayward, J.

1. The lower Courts have held that the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance at the rate of one rupee a month from date of suit. They have, however, declined to grant arrears of maintenance for the four years previous to the suit. On second appeal before us the only question argued has been whether the arrears were properly refused in consequence of failure to prove demand and refusal. No doubt such a rule was laid down in certain decisions of the Madras High Court, but a contrary view was taken by Ranade J. in the case of Ambabai kom Balaji Vinayak Kale v. Ramchandra Balaji Kale (1895) P.J. 44, in this Court. The only ground upon which the arrears might in this case have been refused would appear to be that indicated by Sargent C. J. in the case of Girianna Murkundi Naik v. Honama ILR (1890) 15 Bom. 236, where he stated: 'It is now well established that a Hindu widow is not bound to reside in her deceased husband's family house, and does not forfeit her right to maintenance by going to reside elsewhere, unless she leaves the house for an improper purpose.' No such ground has, however, been made out in this suit.

2. We must, therefore, modify the decree by granting the plaintiff four years' arrears of maintenance prior to suit at the rate of one rupee a month with proportionate costs of this appeal.


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