Phillips, J.:— Appellant's counsel contends that an anandravan of a Malabar tarwad is entitled to menchilavu not only for himself but also for his wife, who belongs to another tarwad. Prima facie a junior member of a Malabar tarwad whether male or female must look to the karnavan of his or her own tarwad for maintenance. If therefore a woman who can claim maintenance from her own karnavan is entitled also to claim maintenance from her husband's tarwad, it gives her a right apparently opposed to the principles of Marumakkattayam law, and we have not been referred to any authority which recognizes such a right except Parvathi v. Kamaran(1). That case is, however, no authority for any such proposition of law. This Court merely accepted a finding that such a custom existed in North Malabar and this finding based on the evidence of two witnesses was not objected to. We are not therefore prepared to accept without authority this new proposition of law that a wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband's tarwad, a proposition which, even in Parvathi v. Kamaran, was described as inconsistent with the principles of Marumakattayam law. If the wife has not a legal right to bare maintenance a fortiori her claim to menchilavu which may be termed a luxurious form of maintenance must be negatived.
A memorandum of objections is filed for respondent and it is contended that plaintiff is not entitled to any money allowance from the karnavan and reliance is placed on Kunhammatha v. Kunhi Kutti Ali(2). In this case, however, no money allowance is decreed, but only compensation for menchilavu not received in the past to which plaintiff has been held to be entitled. This claim to menchilavu must be treated as on the same footing as a claim to past maintenance for which undoubtedly a decree could be given. [Vide Valiya Konikal Edom Kalu v. Lakshmi Nattyar Ammal and Govindan Nair v. Kunju Nair].
The Second Appeal and memorandum of objections are both dismissed with costs.
N.R