1. We accept the finding of the lower court with respect to the annual income of the family and on issue 5. With respect to the rate of maintenance we think that the Subordinate Judge has exercised a sound discretion in fixing the amount at Rs. 15 a month. We dismiss the appeal with costs.
2. With regard to the memorandum of objections) while we agree with Mr. Ramachandra Iyer that the rate of maintenance should be such as to enable the plaintiff to live comfortably, we cannot agree that Rs. 15 is not ample in the circumstances.
3. We think that the lower court has misunderstood the principle on which arrears of maintenance are awarded to a widow. No demand is necessary to entitle her to arrears. The defendant has to show that the plaintiff either expressly agreed to waive heir right to arrears or led the defendant to believe as reasonable men that she would not claim arrears. See Raja Yerlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayudu v. Raja Yerlagadda Durga Prasada Nayudu I.L.R. (1901) M. 147 . We allow arrears from the 15th November, 1906 rip to the date of demand, viz., the 13th August 1907 at Rs. 10 a mouth and at Rs. 15 from the latter date. We also allow a further sum up to Rs. 100 for vrithams on demand being made when the expense is actually incurred. The Subordinate Judge is wrong in supposing that a Hindu widow is not entitled to the cost of performing such vrithams as are usually observed by widows. See Sreemathy Nittokisore Dossee v. Jogendro Nath Mullick .
4. The decree must be modified as above. The parties will pay and receive proprtionate costs on the memorandum of objections.