Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.70 seconds)Section 22 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Amireddi Rajagopala Rao And Others vs Amireddi Sitharamamma And Others on 18 February, 1965
11. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Para 9 in case of Amireddi Raka Gopala Rao and Ors. v. Amireddi Sitharamamma and Ors. reads thus :
Seshi Ammal And Anr. vs Thaiyu Ammal on 17 April, 1963
In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court , Seshi Ammal and Anr. v. Thaiyu Ammal as well as decision of the Supreme Court , Amireddi Raka Gopala Rao and Ors. v. Amireddi Sitharamamma and Ors.
Section 23 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
S. Kameshwaramma vs S. Subramanyam And Ors. on 19 July, 1957
(9) In Kameshwaramma v. Subramanyam , the plaintiff's 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 Section 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 Section 25. This conclusion follows from the plain words of Section 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 of maintenance is a recurring right and the liability to maintenance after the Act came into force is imposed by Section 22, and there is no reason to exclude widows of persons who died before the Act from the operation of Section 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 Sections 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 Section 25 claim alteration of the amount of maintenance. The decision cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that Sections 21 and 22 of the Act affect rights already vested before the commencement of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the claim of the respondent to maintenance for their lives is not affected by the Act.
1