1. We accept the finding of the lower Court with respect to the annual income of the family and on issue No. 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. Ramchandra 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 defendants had to show that the plaintiff either expressly agreed to waive her right to arrears or led the defendants to believe as reasonable men that she would not claim arrears. See Raja Yarlagadda Mallekajuna Prasadh Nayudu v. Raja Yerlagadda Durga Prasadha Nayudu 24 MP. 147. We allow arrears from the 15th November 1906 up to the date of demand viz., the 13th August 1907 at Rs. 10 a month and at Rs. 15 from the latter date. We also allow a further sum up to Rs. 100 for vritams 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 vritams as are usually observed by widow. See Sreemutty Nittokisoree Dossee v. Jogendra Nath Mullick 5 I.A. 55.
4. The decree must be modified as above. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs on the memorandum of objections.