1. It cannot be disputed that the claim for (1) marriage expenses, (2) arrears of maintenance, (3) lump sum on account of residence and (4) clothing for first plaintiff was a claim for debts provable in insolvency. This together was over 90 per cent, of the claim put forward in the suit. Even as regards the claim for future maintenance I am not satisfied, having reference to the language of Section 34(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, that it is not a debt provable in insolvency. If it is not, it would seem that no insolvency proceedings against a Hindu with female relations entitled to maintenance, could be taken effectively.
2. The plaintiff being a creditor to whom the insolvent was indebted in respect of a debt provable under the Act was forbidden by Section 28(2) of the Act to bring any suit against him without the leave of the Insolvency Court. The cases reported in Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamelu Mangamma : (1902)12MLJ270 and Suryanarayana Rao Naidu v. Balasubramania Mudali (1919) 38 M.L.J. 433 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 635, have little if any bearing on the question now at issue. They were cases of sales in execution in which delivery was resisted by maintenance holders. Here we are concerned with the legality of the filing of the suit. I agree with the lower Courts that Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act was a bar to this suit. This appeal is dismissed with costs of third respondent. Court-fee to be paid by the appellant.
3. Leave to appeal is refused.