Skip to content


Jhunna Vs. Ramsarup and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1880)ILR2All777
AppellantJhunna
RespondentRamsarup and ors.
Excerpt:
hindu law - widow--maintenance. - - we do not, however, agree with the observations of the judge, that 'the income being variable according to the seasons, it is better not to affix a given sum for maintenance, but to let that be determined as the occasion may arise. ' for reasons of convenience and in order to prevent the recurrence of litigation between the parties, we think it far better that a reasonable fixed sum, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, should be ascertained and decreed to the plaintiff......brother of the defendants. this suit was brought to have the sum of rs. 48 fixed as the amount of yearly maintenance the plaintiff was entitled to receive from her husband's family. the first court passed a decree in her favour for the sum prayed. the lower appellate court has modified the munsif's order, allotting the maintenance at one-sixth of the hereditary property in suit, that fraction representing the share to which zalim would have been entitled had he been alive. the right of the plaintiff to maintenance is clear; indeed, that is positively found by both the lower courts. we do not, however, agree with the observations of the judge, that 'the income being variable according to the seasons, it is better not to affix a given sum for maintenance, but to let that be determined as.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Straight, J.

1. The plaintiff-appellant is the widow of one Zalim Singh, a brother of the defendants. This suit was brought to have the sum of Rs. 48 fixed as the amount of yearly maintenance the plaintiff was entitled to receive from her husband's family. The first Court passed a decree in her favour for the sum prayed. The lower Appellate Court has modified the Munsif's order, allotting the maintenance at one-sixth of the hereditary property in suit, that fraction representing the share to which Zalim would have been entitled had he been alive. The right of the plaintiff to maintenance is clear; indeed, that is positively found by both the lower Courts. We do not, however, agree with the observations of the Judge, that 'the income being variable according to the seasons, it is better not to affix a given sum for maintenance, but to let that be determined as the occasion may arise.' For reasons of convenience and in order to prevent the recurrence of litigation between the parties, we think it far better that a reasonable fixed sum, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, should be ascertained and decreed to the plaintiff. (The Court then proceeded, to make an order remanding for trial the issue whether Rs. 48 was a reasonable amount of yearly maintenance to be allowed to the plaintiff, and if not what fixed sum would be.)


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