- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajamma v. Varadarajulu Chetti And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal and memorandum of cross-objections against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in O.S. No. 69 of 1950. The plaintiff was married in 1925 at age 11 to Rajamannar Chetti (then 16). Rajamannar Chetti died in the first week of June 1926. After his death an arbitration (Ex. B-2) under a muchalika (Ex. B-1) resulted in an award and an instrument (Ex. B-3) executed by the plaintiff's father purporting to settle the plaintiff's maintenance claim by delivery of jewels (described in Ex. B-3). The plaintiff had remained with her father (a pre-puberty marriage) and, in 1950, she filed the present suit for past and future maintenance (claiming Rs. 250 per month). The defendants confronted her claim with the adjustment recorded in Ex. B-3, contended the maintenance claim was exaggerated (arguing entitlement to Rs. 15 per month) and alleged abandonment of past maintenance. The Subordinate Judge found Ex. B-3 not binding on the plaintiff, awarded arrears at Rs. 10 per month and future maintenance at Rs. 50 per month, charged these sums on certain listed properties, and awarded Rs. 250 for pilgrimage and vrathams; the plaintiff was made to bear Court-fee on the disallowed amount and given proportionate costs. The plaintiff appealed on quantum and disallowance; the defendants appealed against the award of maintenance itself.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Ex. B-3 precludes the plaintiff from maintaining this suit (i.e., whether the documented adjustment is fair, reasonable and binding on the minor plaintiff).
- Whether there was abandonment with respect to arrears of maintenance so as to bar the plaintiff's claim for past maintenance.
- Whether the quantum of maintenance (past and future) awarded by the Subordinate Judge is correct.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Contentions
- The plaintiff (through the facts presented) maintained that the jewels returned to her father were the Stridhanam jewels that had been given to her before marriage by her father-in-law, and thus represented her absolute property rather than being a full quit of future maintenance rights.
- The plaintiff asserted entitlement to past and future maintenance; she filed suit in 1950 because her father had become old and unable to support her.
Defendants' Contentions
- The defendants contended that Ex. B-3 constituted an effective adjustment of the plaintiff's maintenance claim by the transfer of valuables; they now assert the jewels given were worth Rs. 4,000 (seeking to show a substantial adjustment), contrary to the documentary award stating Rs. 2,500.
- The defendants argued the plaintiff's maintenance claim was exaggerated and that she was entitled only to Rs. 15 per month.
- The defendants alleged abandonment of the claim for past maintenance (arguing that arrears should not be allowed).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Luchmun Chander v. Kali Churn, 19 Suth WR 292 (A) | Supports that gifts made before or after marriage to a woman constitute stridhanam (woman's absolute property). | Relied on as authority that the jewels retained by the plaintiff were her absolute property and could not be treated as joint family property given in full satisfaction of future maintenance. |
| Kullammal v. Kuppu, 1 Mad HCR 85 (B) | Authority on the nature of pre/post-nuptial gifts as stridhanam. | Used to support the conclusion that the jewels were stridhanam and not an effective adjustment of maintenance rights. |
| Wulubhram v. Bijlee (sic) | Regarded as part of the body of decisions recognizing marital gifts as woman's property. | Cited among authorities establishing the stridhanam principle relied upon by the Court. |
| Damodar Madhowji v. Paramanandas, ILR 7 Bom 155 (C) | Authority on gifts to women at or before marriage being her absolute property. | Applied to reject the defendants' contention that the jewels amounted to a full quit of maintenance. |
| Munia v. Puran, ILR 5 All 310 (PB) (D) | Decision supporting that such gifts (saudayika/stridhanam) are at woman's absolute disposal. | Included among cases showing that retention of such property by the plaintiff could not operate as a binding adjustment of her maintenance claim. |
| Bhan v. Raghunath, ILR 30 Bom 229 (E) | Authority on the absolute dominion of a woman over wedding/pre-nuptial gifts. | Relied on as part of the jurisprudence that disfavors treating such gifts as settlement of maintenance claims. |
| Venkatarama v. Venkatasurive, ILR 2 Mad 333 (PC) (F) | Supports the view that gifts to a woman around marriage constitute her exclusive property. | Used collectively with other precedents to conclude Ex. B-3 does not bar maintenance suit. |
| Atul Krishna v. Sanniasy Churn, ILR 32 Cal 1051 (G) | Further authority on saudayika/stridhanam doctrine. | Part of the cited body of case law establishing that the jewels could not be treated as a full quit of maintenance. |
| Basanta Kumari v. Kamikshya, 32 Ind App 181 (H) | Case supporting that gifts to women in connection with marriage are her absolute property. | Included among authorities underpinning the Court's view that the adjustment plea failed. |
| Sham Shivendar v. Janki Koer, ILR 36 Cal 311 (PC) (I) | Authority cited on the nature of gifts to women at marriage. | Relied on to reinforce the conclusion that the jewels were stridhanam and not a settlement of maintenance. |
| Muthukaruppa Pillai v. Sellathammal, ILR 39 Mad 298; AIR 1915 Mad 475 (J) | Decision supporting the view of marital gifts being woman's absolute property. | Cited in support of the proposition that retention of such property cannot be treated as a full quit of maintenance. |
| Venkareddi v. Hanmantgowda, ILR 57 Bom 85; AIR 1932 Bom 559 (K) | Authority on the absolute character of saudayika/stridhanam. | Included among cases applied to reject the defendants' adjustment argument. |
| King Emperor v. Satnarain, ILR 53 All 437; AIR 1931 All 265 (L) | Another decision referenced in the context of gifts to a woman being her exclusive property. | Used as part of the jurisprudential foundation for treating the jewels as the plaintiff's stridhanam. |
| Rangathayi v. N.M. Chetti, 21 Mad LJ 706 (M) | Authority that the right to arrears is an absolute right, defeasible only on proof of waiver, abandonment, estoppel or limitation. | Relied on to hold that arrears are available to the widow unless abandonment/waiver is proved. |
| Subramania Iyer v. Muthammal, 21 Mad LJ 482 (N) | Supports the principle that arrears cannot be disallowed except on specified grounds. | Applied to conclude absence of abandonment/waiver here means arrears remain claimable. |
| Pushpavalli v. Raghavayya, 23 Ind Cas 413; AIR 1914 Mad 451 (O) | Decision affirming the protective character of arrears rights to widows. | Used with others to confirm the plaintiff's entitlement to arrears absent waiver/abandonment. |
| Panchakshara v. Pattammal, AIR 1927 Mad 865 (P) | Authority on entitlement to arrears unless law bars it. | Relied upon to support that no abandonment was proved in this case. |
| Srinivasa v. Lakshmi, 54 Mad LJ 530; AIR 1928 Mad 216 (Q) | Confirms the rule on arrears; also cited for the proposition that arrears may be fixed lower than future maintenance. | Relied on both to deny abandonment and to support fixing arrears at a lower scale than future maintenance. |
| Godavarti Sobbanadramma v. Godavarti Varaha Lakshmi, 67 Mad LJ 712; AIR 1934 Mad 401 (R) | Authority establishing arrears as an enforceable right subject to specific defenses. | Applied to reinforce the view that arrears remain claimable here. |
| Venkatapathi v. Puttamma, 71 Mad LJ 499; AIR 1936 Mad 609 (S) | Supports the principle that arrears are available unless barred or waived; cited for fixing arrears lower than future maintenance. | Used to justify fixing arrears at a lower rate than future maintenance. |
| Venkatarathnama v. Sitaratnam, AIR 1932 Mad 408 (T) | Authority that arrears may be fixed on a lower scale than future maintenance. | Applied in supporting the Subordinate Judge's approach to reduce arrears relative to future maintenance. |
| Dandamudi Ramarayudu v. Dandamudi Sitalakshmamma, AIR 1937 Mad 915 (U) | Decision cited about principles for fixing maintenance and treating arrears differently from future maintenance. | Referred to in the context of judicial discretion to fix arrears at a lower rate than future maintenance. |
| Mt. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar, AIR 1929 PC 128 (V) | Privy Council decision enumerating the various circumstances to be considered when fixing the rate of maintenance. | Identified as the guiding authority for factors to be applied when assessing the quantum of maintenance; the Court called for application of these factors and for the Subordinate Judge to analyze family income accordingly. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court addressed the three identified points in sequence.
1. On Ex. B-3 (whether it precludes the suit): The court explained that Ex. B-3 could operate as an adjustment of the maintenance claim only if it was fair, proper and reasonable and in the best interests of the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time and whose father acted only as a de facto guardian. The court examined competing versions about the jewels: the plaintiff's version that she received only Stridhanam jewels given before marriage by her father-in-law; the defendants' version that four additional valuable items (Oddiyanam, gold chain, vanki and Billai) were given. The Subordinate Judge had scrutinised the evidence and found the defendants' story about the additional jewels "wholly false." The appellate court agreed. Relying on a line of authority establishing that pre- and post-nuptial gifts are stridhanam (the woman's absolute property), the court held that where the plaintiff was allowed to retain her absolute property, that could not constitute a valid settlement of her future maintenance. Consequently the pleaded adjustment (Ex. B-3) failed to preclude her suit.
2. On abandonment of arrears: The court recited settled law that the right to arrears is an absolute right, defeasible only by proof of waiver, abandonment, estoppel or limitation. The court found no evidence of abandonment or waiver here. It noted customary practice in the relevant communities for widows who lost husbands early to reside with their parents and to refrain from seeking maintenance while parents were affluent; this customary behaviour did not amount to abandonment. The court therefore concluded that arrears were not barred on the ground of abandonment.
3. On the quantum of maintenance: The court identified two distinct aspects to determine quantum — (a) the various circumstances (as set out by the Privy Council in Mt. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar) that must be considered in fixing maintenance, and (b) the factual determination of the joint family's income-producing properties and income as on the date of suit. The court found that although the circumstances relevant for assessment were on the record, the Subordinate Judge had not analysed, with sufficient clarity, the income-producing properties and income of the joint family. The court described the existing evidence as vague and the findings as halting and inconclusive. Because of that deficiency, the court could not confidently fix or revise the quantum and therefore called for the Subordinate Judge to make a clear finding on the extent of the joint family estate and the income derived therefrom as at the date of the suit, permitting additional documentary and oral evidence and setting time-limits for compliance (six weeks for the finding; one week thereafter for objections).
Holding and Implications
Core Rulings:
- Ex. B-3 does not preclude the plaintiff from maintaining the suit. The Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge's finding that the defendants' account of additional jewels was false and, applying the law of stridhanam, held that the jewels retained by the plaintiff could not be treated as a full quit of her maintenance rights.
- There was no abandonment or waiver of the plaintiff's right to arrears. The Court applied the established principle that arrears are an absolute right unless shown to be waived, abandoned, barred by limitation, or estopped.
- The Subordinate Judge's approach of fixing arrears at a lower rate than future maintenance was legally supportable in principle. The Court endorsed the reasoning that arrears can be fixed lower because the defendant may not have provisioned for that obligation in earlier years.
- The matter of quantum of maintenance (past and future) is remanded for further factual findings on the extent and income of the joint family estate in accordance with the factors laid down in Mt. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar. The appellate court required the Subordinate Judge to re-examine the documentary and (if necessary) oral evidence and to furnish a clear finding within the time specified.
Implications for the parties:
- The plaintiff's suit is not defeated by Ex. B-3 and her claim for arrears stands, subject to a detailed determination of quantum after further findings.
- The defendants cannot rely on the alleged adjustment by jewels (as claimed) to defeat the maintenance claim; they remain at risk of a maintenance award after the Subordinate Judge completes the further inquiry.
- No final modification of the specific monetary awards (arrears and future maintenance) is made by this opinion; the court remanded the quantum issue for specific factual determination. The previous findings (that arrears may be fixed lower and that Ex. B-3 fails) were expressly approved.
The opinion does not state that it sets any new legal precedent; rather it applies existing authorities (as listed) to the facts and remands for fuller factual findings to determine the exact quantum of maintenance.
Ramaswami, J.:— This is an appeal and memorandum of cross-objections directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Chingleput in O.S No. 69 of 1950.
2. The facts are: The first defendant Varadarajulu Chetti had three sons by name Rajamannar Chetti, Dharmayya Chetti and Krishnan Chetti. The plaintiff was married in 1925 to Rajamannar Chetti when she was 11 years old and Rajamannar Chetti was 16 years old. This Rajamannar Chetti died in the first week of June 1926. Before the Karumathi of this Rajamannar Chetti, the plaintiff's father is said to have settled the maintenance claim of his daughter by executing Ex. B-3 in pursuance of the arbitration award Ex. B-2 mediated under the muchalika Ex. B-1. The plaintiff has always been residing with her father, because she has not joined her husband, this being a prepuberty marriage. In 1950 on account of the fact that her father was becoming old and was unable to support her, the plaintiff has filed this suit for maintenance claiming past and future maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month and on coming to Court she was confronted with the adjustment of her maintenance claim under Ex. B-3 and the plea that the claim for maintenance was exaggerated and that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance only at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and that she had abandoned her claim for past maintenance.
3. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the adjustment is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and gave a decree for arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and future maintenance at Rs. 50/- per month. These amounts were erected as a charge on items 1 to 6 of the plaint A Schedule property. In addition a sum of Rs. 250/- was awarded for pilgrimage, Vrathams etc. The plaintiff was made to bear the Court-fee on the disallowed amount and was given proportionate costs. The defeated plaintiff appeals in regard to the quantum of maintenance, past and future, disallowed and the defendants appeal against the award of maintenance itself.
4. Three points which arise for consideration before us are:
1. Whether Ex. B-3 precludes the plaintiff from maintaining this suit?
2. Whether there was abandonment in respect of arrears of maintenance?
3. Whether the quantum of maintenance, past and future, awarded is correct?
5. Point 1.— In regard to Ex. B-3, it would operate as an adjustment of the maintenance claim only if it is found to be fair, proper and reasonable and in the best interests of the plaintiff, because it should be borne in mind that this plaintiff was a minor at that time and her father could at best be nothing more than a de facto guardian and the other party to Ex. B-3 was the father-in-law of the plaintiff who would be interested only in minimizing as much as possible the amount of maintenance and save as much as possible of the family properties for the benefit of himself and his two other sons, defendants 2 and 3.
6. This Ex. B-3 along with the award of the arbitrators state that the jewels handed over to the plaintiff's father were worth Rs. 2500 only. The defendants want now to get over it by alleging that the jewels were really worth Rs. 4000. There is no reason to accept this statement which is made only for the purpose of showing that a considerable sum like Rs. 4000 was given by way of adjustment of the maintenance claim.
7. In regard to the jewels handed over, there are two versions before us. One version is that of the plaintiff that the jewels which were handed back to her were the jewels given to her as Stridhanam jewels before the marriage by her father-in-law. On the other hand, the version of the defendants is that in addition to the jewels given before marriage by the father-in-law, four items of jewels of considerable value like Oddiyanam, gold chain, vanki and Billai were given.
8. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge has thoroughly scrutinised the evidence in paragraph 8 of his judgment, and has come to the conclusion, with which we entirely agree, that this version of the defendants about four additional jewels is wholly false. On the other hand, what is found is that the plaintiff was given only the jewels which were given to her before marriage by the father-in-law's house.
9. The law regarding gifts before marriage or wedding gifts or post-nuptial gifts1 is well settled. These gifts constitute stridhanam, literally meaning women's property and a species of it is known by the name of saudayika. Katyayana declares:
“What a woman, either after marriage or before it, either in the mansion of her husband or of her father, receives from her lord or her parents is called a gift from affectionate kindred (saudayika); and such a gift having by them been presented through kindness, that the woman possessing it may live well, is declared by law to be her absolute property. The absolute exclusive dominion of women over such a gift is perpetually celebrated”.
10. According to most writers, it is wealth received by a woman, whether as a maiden or as a married woman, in her father's or husband's house from her parents or relatives of the father and mother. There is a verse of Vyasa that defines Saudayika similarly.
“Whatever is obtained by a woman as a maiden at the time of marriage and after marriage from the house or her father or husband is termed saudayika.”
11. The word “saudayika” is derived from “sudaya” and means, according to the Dayabhaga IV. 1.22, page 76, “received from affectionate kindred”. The Amarekosa says that “sudaya” means “gifts of Yautaka and the like” and that Saudayika is merely a derivative without change of meaning. Saudayika means literally a gift made through affection. Therefore Saudayika means all gifts and bequests from relations, but not gifts and bequests from strangers and saudayika of all sorts are absolutely at a woman's own disposal. She may spend, sell, divide, or give it away at her own pleasure.
12. The decisions of Courts take this view: Luchmun Chander v. Kali Churn, 19 Suth WR 292 (A); Kullammal v. Kuppu, 1 Mad HCR 85 (B); Wulubhram v. Bijlee (sic); Damodar Madhowji v. Paramanandas, ILR 7 Bom 155 (C); Munia v. Puran, ILR 5 All 310 (PB) (D); Bhan v. Raghu nath, ILR 30 Bom 229 (E); Venkatarama v. Venkatasurive, ILR 2 Mad 333 (PC) (F); Atul Krishna v. Sanniasy Churn, ILR 32 Cal 1051 (G); Basanta Kumari v. Kamikshya, 32 Ind App 181 (H); Sham Shivendar v. Janki Koer, ILR 36 Cal 311 (PC) (I); Muthukaruppa Pillai v. Sellathammal, ILR 39 Mad 298 : (AIR 1915 Mad) (475) (J); Venkareddi v. Hanmantgowda, ILR 57 Bom 85 : (AIR 1932 Bom 559) (K); King Emperor v. Satnarain, ILR 53 All 437 : (AIR 1931 All) (265) (L). Therefore, when the absolute property of the plaintiff was allowed to be retained by her, it cannot be considered to be joint family property given in full quit of her future maintenance. The adjustment pleaded therefore fails.
13. Point 2: It is now well settled law that the right to arrears is an absolute right, defeasible only on proof of waiver, abandonment, estoppel or limitation and that apart from these considerations a Court has no discretion either to disallow arrears totally or to cut down the period for which they are to be granted: Rangathayi v. N.M Chetti, 21 Mad LJ 706 (M); Subramania Iyer v. Muthammal, 21 Mad LJ 482 (N); Pushpavalli v. Raghavayya, 23 Ind Cas 413 : (AIR 1914 Mad) (451) (O); Panchakshara v. Pattammal, AIR 1927 Mad 865 (P); Srinivasa v. Lakshmi, 54 Mad LJ 530 : (AIR 1928 Mad) (216) (Q); Godavarti Sobbanadramma v. Godavarti Varaha Lakshmi, 67 Mad LJ 712 : (AIR 1934 Mad) (401) (R); Venkatapathi v. Puttamma, 71 Mad LJ 499 : (AIR 1936 Mad) (609) (S).
14. Thus, a widow is entitled to claim arrears provided her right is not either barred by time or is not waived or impliedly abandoned. There is no case of abandonment or waiver in this case. It used to be customary amongst the communities from which this case comes for widows who had lost their husbands early in life to reside only in their parents' house. So long as the parents continue to be affluent, it used to be considered derogatory to take maintenance. This has also been the case here and it is only because the father has become old and this middle-aged plaintiff has to look forward to other permanent sources of income for her maintenance, that she has filed this suit in the pauper form.
15. Therefore, no question of abandonment and waiver could be inferred. But it is equally well settled that arrears may be fixed on a lower scale than future maintenance: 54 Mad LJ 530 : (AIR 1928 Mad) (216) (Q); Venkatarathnama v. Sitaratnam, AIR 1932, Mad 408 (T); 71 Mad LJ 499 : (AIR 1936 Mad) (609) (S) and Dandmudi Ramarayudu v. Dandamudi Sitalakshmamma, AIR 1937 Mad 915 (U).
16. This is based on the principle that by reason of the arrears not being claimed promptly, the opposite party would have been induced not to make any provision for meeting it out of his annual income and therefore it would not be proper to saddle him with such heavy unexpected liability as would result in the liquidation of the joint family assets. Therefore, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge rightly held that there was no abandonment or waiver and fixed the arrears of maintenance at a lower rate than future maintenance.
17. Point 3: The final point for determination is the quantum past and future, and in regard to which two aspects have to be considered viz., the various circumstances which have been set out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the will known decision of Mt. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar, AIR 1929 PC 128 (V) for fixing the rate and secondly, the data for calculating the income of the joint family. In this case the evidence regarding the circumstances for assessing maintenance as set out in AIR 1929 PC 128 (V) is clear, But unfortunately the learned Sub-ordinate Judge has not analysed the income producing properties, movable and immovable, belonging to this joint family of the defendants on the date of the filing of this suit in order to enable us to fix the quantum. The evidence has been set out in vague and discursive manner and the finding is halting and inconclusive. Therefore, inasmuch as we would, like to have the benefit of a clear finding of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge before assessing whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by him requires to be enhanced or not, or reduced or not we call for a finding from the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Chingleput on the materials on record plus such additional documentary evidence (including oral evidence to prove that documentary evidence) as might be adduced by both sides about the extent of the joint family estate of the defendants and the income derived therefrom on the date of suit. Time six weeks. Objections, if any, one week thereafter.
D.S.P
18. Order accordingly.
Alert