1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Hindu woman for a declaration fixing the amount of future maintenance and for payment of a certain sum as past maintenance. The defendant is the Court of Wards representing an estate under its management. The learned Judge allowed a sum of Rupees 4006-8-0 on account of past maintenance, but there was a clerical error because the amount claimed was Rs. 5082-8-0 and the learned Judge held that a sum of Rs. 976 should be deducted. On the deduction of Rs. 976 the balance is Rs. 4106-8-0. It has been argued by the appellant that the learned Judge was wrong in allowing past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 because that sum was excessive. The learned Judge of the Court below pointed out that the plaintiff was promised an allowance at the rate of Rs. 150 by one of the other widows of the family who was in possession. There were three widows and it was agreed that each should receive Rs. 150. The learned Judge has further pointed out that the plaintiff was in expectation of receiving an allowance at this rate and that she may have conducted her life accordingly. We see no reason to differ from the learned Judge upon this point or to reduce the rate of maintenance allowed by him at the time when the estate was not under the management of Court of Wards. The decree will however be corrected and the correct sum of Rs. 4106 will be substituted for the sum of Rs. 4006. This additional amount is the subject of a cross-objection.
2. The other question which has been raised in appeal is that the learned Judge of the Court below was not entitled to fix a rate of future maintenance or to make the payment of that allowance a charge upon the property. In view of the provisions of Section 53, Court of Wards Act, we think that the appeal must succeed upon this point. The rate fixed was RS. 75 a month and the Collector in charge of the Court of Wards was willing to pay at this rate, We have no doubt that he will continue to do so because the rate seems to be reasonable, but we are satisfied that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in this matter. Section 53, Court of Wards Act, would have no meaning if it did not refer to claims which could be enforced in law. Therefore we think that the Court at the date when it passed its decree was not entitled to fix the rate of maintenance payable by the Court of Wards to the plaintiff. The result is that we allow the appeal in part and set aside that part of the decree of the lower Court which fixes the rate of future maintenance and makes it charge upon the property under the control of the Court of Wards. We dismiss the appeal in so far as it refers to past maintenance and direct as a result of the cross-objection that the amount of past maintenance entered in the decree should be Rs. 4106 instead of Rs. 4006. The respondent will get her costs of the cross-objection. The appellant shall pay half the respondent's costs in this Court. We do not interfere with the orders for costs in the Court below.