Case: Amireddi Rajagopala Rao And Others Vs. Amireddi Sitharamamma And Others

2. Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary or intestate succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate. 3. The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her. 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependant shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of the others, if he or she has obtained a share or part the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act. " Sub-section (1) of S. 22 imposes upon the heirs of a deceased Hindu the liability to maintain the dependants of the deceased defined in S. 21 out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased, but this liability is subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), under which only a dependant who has not obtained by testamentary or intestate succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of the Act is entitled, subject to the provisions of the Act, to maintenance. Specific provision is thus made in S. 22 with regard to maintenance of the dependants defined in S. 21 out of the estate of the deceased Hindu, and in view of S. 4, the Hindu law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act ceases to have effect after the commencement of the Act with respect to matters for which provision is so made. In terms, Ss. 21 and 22 are prospective. Where the Act is intended to be retrospective, it expressly says so. Thus, S. 18 provides for maintenance of a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, by her husband, S. 19 provides for the maintenance of a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, by her father-in-law, after the death of her husband, and S. 25 provides for alteration of the amount of maintenance whether fixed by a decree of Court or by agreement either before or after the commencement of the Act. 9. Now, before the Act came into force, rights of maintenance out of the estate of a Hindu dying before the commencement of the Act were acquired, and the corresponding liability to pay the maintenance was incurred under the Hindu law in force at the time of his death. It is a well-recognised rule that a statute should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights, and such a construction should never be adopted if the words are open to another construction. See Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn. (1963), p. 397. We think that Ss. 21 and 22 read with S. 4 do not destroy or affect any right of maintenance out of the estate of a deceased Hindu vested on his death before the commencement of the Act under the Hindu law in force at the time of his death. 10. On the death of Lingayya, the first respondent as his concubine and the second, third and fourth respondents as her illegitimate sons had a vested right of maintenance during their lives out of the estate of Lingayya. This right, and the corresponding liability of the appellants to pay maintenance are not affected by Ss. 21 and 22 of the Act. The continuing claim of the respondents during their lifetime springs out of the original right vested in them on the death of Lingayya and is not founded on any right arising after the commencement of the Act. 11. In Kameshwaramma v. Subramanyam, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 269, the plaintiffs husband had died in the year 1916, and the plaintiff had entered into a compromise in 1924 fixing her maintenance at Rs. 240 per year and providing that the rate of maintenance shall not be increased or reduced. The question arose whether, in spite of this agreement, the plaintiff could claim increased maintenance in view of S. 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance. Act, 1956. It was held that, in spite of the aforesaid term of the compromise, she was entitled to claim increased maintenance under S. 25. This conclusion follows from the plain words of S. 25, under which the amount of maintenance, whether fixed by decree or agreement either before or after the commencement of the Act, may be altered subsequently. The decision was, therefore, plainly right. No doubt, there are broad observations in that case to the effect that the right to maintenance is a recurring right and the liability to maintenance after the Act came into force is imposed by S. 22, and there is no reason to exclude widows of persons who died before the Act from the operation of S. 22. Those observations were not necessary for the purpose of that case, because the widow in that case was clearly entitled to maintenance from the estate of her deceased husband dying in 1916 under the Hindu law, as it stood then, independently of Ss. 21 and 22 of the Act, and in spite of the compromise fixing the maintenance before the commencement of the Act, the widow could in view of S. 25 claim alteration of the amount of the maintenance. The decision cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that Ss. 21 and 22 of the Act affect rights already vested before the commencement of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the claim of the respondents to maintenance for their lives is not affected by the Act. 12. We see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below with regard to the quantum of maintenance. 13.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In Kameshwaramma v. Subramanyam, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 269, the plaintiffs husband had died in the year 1916, and the plaintiff had entered into a compromise in 1924 fixing her maintenance at Rs. 240 per year and providing that the rate of maintenance shall not be increased or reduced. The question arose whether, in spite of this agreement, the plaintiff could claim increased maintenance in view of S. 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance. Act, 1956. It was held that, in spite of the aforesaid term of the compromise, she was entitled to claim increased maintenance under S. 25. This conclusion follows from the plain words of S. 25, under which the amount of maintenance, whether fixed by decree or agreement either before or after the commencement of the Act, may be altered subsequently. The decision was, therefore, plainly right. No doubt, there are broad observations in that case to the effect that the right to maintenance is a recurring right and the liability to maintenance after the Act came into force is imposed by S. 22, and there is no reason to exclude widows of persons who died before the Act from the operation of S. 22. Those observations were not necessary for the purpose of that case, because the widow in that case was clearly entitled to maintenance from the estate of her deceased husband dying in 1916 under the Hindu law, as it stood then, independently of Ss. 21 and 22 of the Act, and in spite of the compromise fixing the maintenance before the commencement of the Act, the widow could in view of S. 25 claim alteration of the amount of the maintenance. The decision cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that Ss. 21 and 22 of the Act affect rights already vested before the commencement of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the claim of the respondents to maintenance for their lives is not affected by the ActWe see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below with regard to the quantum of maintenance.