1. The appellant sued her father-in-law for maintenance due to her as the widow of the defendant's son The marriage was in 1925 at which time the plaintiff must have been a mere child. Her husband died on 7th August, 1930 There are findings of fact that the defendant had no ancestral property and that the plaintiff after her husband s death left her father-in-law's household voluntarily. In appeal it is argued that by reason of the circumstance that she was a minor at the time of her marriage and that she was taken into her father-in-law's household, she has a right to claim maintenance out of her father-in-law's self-acquired property. This contention seems to rest on no authority at all. It is true that the learned Judges who decided Meenakshi Ammal v. Rama Aiyar (1912) 24 M.L.J. 106 : I.L.R. 1912 Mad. 396 in negativing the claim to maintenance by an adult daughter-in-law against her father-in-law, refers to the possibility that special circumstances might make it equitable and just in a particular case to uphold such a claim and speak of the minority of the daughter-in-law as one such special circumstance not existing in the case with which they had to deal. But observations of this nature cannot be taken as authority for the position that whenever a minor daughter-in-law is widowed, she has a right to claim maintenance from her father-in-law's self-acquired property, more especially when she no longer lives in the father-in-law's household as the case here. It is pointed out that since the filing of this second appeal, the father-in-law has died and his widow has been impleaded as his legal representative, and it is suggested that this will bring into operation the line of cases which have recognised the right of a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance out of the father-in-law's estate when it has descended, by inheritance to others. It seems to me quite obvious that if the plaintiff's right to claim maintenance has been enlarged by the death of the defendant, that enlarged claim cannot be established in the present suit which has been framed simply as a suit against the father-in-law. I say nothing therefore which will either help or hinder the plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit, if so advised, against the heir of the deceased father-in-law. I may observe, however, that the present respondent - the legal representative of the deceased defendant - denies that she is in possession of her husband's estate as his heir-at-law.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
3. Leave to appeal is refused.