The main companytroversies in the appeal before the High Court were 1 whether the provisions of the Act are retrospective and 2 whether a married woman who left her husband and lived with another as his permanently kept mistress companyld be regarded as an A varuddha Stree.
In view of the importance of these questions, the appeal was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court.
On the second question, the High Court held that the first respondent was an Avaruddha Stree of Lingayya, and was entitled to maintenance from his estate, though her husband was alive and the companynection with Lingayya was adulterous.
The High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge with regard to the quantum of maintenance.
During the pendency of the appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force.
In the case of Sudras, the Dasiputra was entitled to a share of the inheritance, and this share was given to him number merely in lieu of maintenance but in recognition of his status as a son, see Gur Narain Das and another v. Gur Tahal Das and others 1 .
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 22, 1960, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No.
At the subsequent trial on the amended plaint, the Subordinate Judge decreed the respondents claim for maintenance and companysequential reliefs and awarded to them maintenance during their lifetime out of the estate of Lingayya.
The parties are residents of Choragudi, Bapatla, number in Andhra Pradesh and governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law.
During this period and thereafter, she preserved sexual fidelity to Lingayya.
The Subordinate Judge passed his decree on September 20, 1954.
The appellants are the brothers and brothers sons of Lingayya.
Lingayya was separate in estate from his brothers and brothers sons.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCiVil Appeal No.
The husband of the first respondent is still alive.
In the plaint, as originally filed, the respondents claimed that they were exclusively entitled to the estate left by Lingayya.
The second, third and fourth respondents are the sons of the first respondent by Lingayya.
709 of 1954.
434 of 1963.
Ranganadham Chetty, A. Vedavalli and A.V. Rangam, for the appellants.
The suit was originally dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, but on appeal, the High Court gave the respondents leave to amend the plaint by making suitable averments for the award of maintenance, and remanded the suit for trial on the question of maintenance.
The Subordinate Judge and the High Court found that as the first respondent was and companytinued to be a married woman while she lived with Lingayya and bore him children, she was number the lawfully wedded wife of Lingayya and the children born of the union were number his legitimate sons, number were they Dasiputras and as such entitled to his properties.
During the life time of her husband she became the companycubine of one Lingayya, a Sudra by caste.
S.K. Sastri and M.S. Narasimhan, for the respondents.
She was married to one Ramakrishnayya.
From 1938 until the death of Lingayya in February, 1948, she was the permanently kept companycubine of Lingayya, and lived with him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The first respondent, Seetharamamma, is a Brahmin woman.
