VYAWASFHA3.DARPANA 335 entitled to a maintenance out of the estate which was of Tilak Rám Pákráss her late husband, and which has come to the hands of the said defendant Joy Nārāyan Pākrási. And it is further ordered and decreed that it be referred to the Master of this court to enquire and ascertain what is a proper and suitable maintenance to be made to one of the widows of Tilak Rám Pákrásí deceased. The report was accordingly made, finding Sa. Rs. 40, per month to be a proper allowance for Koushalyā Debs. The following are the minutes of the final decree, on the 11th July 1803, made upon reading the Master's reports, in both causes: The court, in consideration of the second widow being entitled to a maintenance out of the estate, declared that the sum to be paid to her be charged upon and payabl out of the annuity of Rs. 280 directed to be raised for Mandodari Debi by order of this court. e On the 18th July, the minutes were amended (in the first cause) by introducing the following, viz. That, upon securing to Koushalyā Debi the payment of her annuity of Sa. Rs. 40 per month, E. Lloyd, Esqr, the Master (out of the gross amount of sales of the estate of the said Tilak Rám Pákrāsi) do pay over to the complainant (i. e. Mandodari Debi) the sum of Sa. Rs. 6,809-5-1, being the arrears due to her, from the 23rd March 1801 to 21st January, 1803, being 1 year 10 months and 16 days. Srimfiti Mandodari Debi versus Joy Nārāyan Pākrási (1800-1-3). Kousahlyā Debi versus Joy Nārāyan Pākrási (1803). For further particulars of these two cases, See Montriou's Cases of Hindu law, pp. 403—412. Jadumani Dási versus Khyetra Mohan Shíl. S. C. 21st July 1854. Peel, C. J. delivered the judgment of the Court on this question.—The question in this case is whether a Hindu childless widow, who, some short time after the death of her husband, uncompelled by cruelty or ill usage, left the house of the family of her deceased husband, to dwell at first in the house of her own father, and subsequently with her aunt, living with her own relations, the residence being in all respects a proper one and her conduct unimpeached, forfeits her right of maintenance out of the property which was that of her deceased husband in his life-time, and which has devolved on his heirs. In several decisions of this Court it has been held that under such circumstances no such forfeiture is incurred. In a recent case" in the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut it has been decided, though not unanimously, that under similar circumstances such a forfeiture is incurred. This decision has, however, been followed by another in the same court, in which it was held, that if the widow leaves the residence for that of her parents on a tender of an insufficient maintenance she does not forfeit her right to maintenance. This state of the authorities has induced us to examine closely into the law on the subject. . We should not hesitate to follow the decisions of the Sudder in preference to those of our own Court, if they appeared to us to be at once more just and more conformable to the Hiudu law. We have intended to follow the Privy Council. The Privy Council has, on the subject of the right of Hindu widow to return to the home of her parents, laid down a broad rule upon which it is not desirable to infringe. That Court says: “it was not pretended that she had withdrawn herself for unchaste purposes. She was only fourteen at the death of her husband; his brothers were young men; and she thought it more prudent aud decorous to retire from their protection and live with her mother and her family after the husband's death—therefore, it appears quite clear from the answers given by the pandits that she did not forfeit the right of succession to the husband's estate, on account of removing from the brothers of her late husband; that they had no right to insist on her not withdrawing herself from them, in order to put herself under λεν mother's protection.” The decisions of that Court must, of course, give the law to all Courts here.
- Ujjalmaní Dási versus Joy Gopál Pál Choudhuri and othors. 1st June 1848.
Саве bearing on the vyavasthé No. 160.
