Vested maintenance rights under pre-Act Hindu law survive the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 absent express extinction.

Under pre-Act Hindu law, an illegitimate son of a Sudra could claim maintenance from his father's estate, and a permanently kept concubine treated as an Avaruddha Stree could also claim maintenance, even where the woman was married and the relationship was adulterous or pratiloma. Sections 4, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 were held to operate prospectively and not to extinguish a maintenance right that had already vested on the Hindu's death before the Act commenced. The pre-existing claim therefore remained enforceable, and the amount of maintenance was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a permanently kept concubine and her illegitimate sons were entitled under pre-Act Hindu law to maintenance from the estate of a deceased Sudra, notwithstanding that the woman was married, the connection was adulterous, and the relationship was pratiloma; (ii) whether sections 4, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 displaced the vested right of maintenance which had accrued on the death of the deceased before the Act came into force.

Issue (i): Whether a permanently kept concubine and her illegitimate sons were entitled under pre-Act Hindu law to maintenance from the estate of a deceased Sudra, notwithstanding that the woman was married, the connection was adulterous, and the relationship was pratiloma.

Analysis: Under the Mitakshara law, an illegitimate son of a Sudra was entitled to maintenance out of his father's estate even where the mother was a married woman and the connection with the putative father was adulterous. A permanently kept concubine who preserved sexual fidelity to the paramour could be treated as an Avaruddha Stree and claim maintenance from his estate. The fact that the woman was a Brahmin and the relationship was pratiloma did not defeat the claim, because the law recognised maintenance rights arising from such concubinage notwithstanding its immoral character.

Conclusion: The concubine and her illegitimate sons were entitled to maintenance out of the estate under the Hindu law as it stood before the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether sections 4, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 displaced the vested right of maintenance which had accrued on the death of the deceased before the Act came into force.

Analysis: Sections 21 and 22 were framed prospectively and dealt with dependants of a Hindu dying after the commencement of the Act. Section 4 displaced prior Hindu law only where the Act itself made provision. The statute did not expressly take away rights of maintenance already vested on the death of a Hindu before its commencement. A construction preserving vested rights was therefore required, and the right to maintenance that arose on the death of the deceased remained enforceable.

Conclusion: The Act did not extinguish or affect the vested right of maintenance that had accrued before its commencement.

Final Conclusion: The claim to lifetime maintenance survived under the pre-Act Hindu law and was not defeated by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the concurrent finding on the amount of maintenance was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A vested right of maintenance arising on the death of a Hindu before the commencement of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is not taken away by sections 4, 21 and 22 of the Act unless the statute expressly so provides.

---