1965 (2) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds maintenance rights for concubine and illegitimate children under Hindu law

Amireddi Rajagopala Rao And Others Versus Amireddi Sitharamamma And Others

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the respondents, including a permanently kept concubine and her illegitimate children, were ... - Issues Involved:1. Retrospective application of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.2. Status and rights of a permanently kept concubine (Avaruddha Stree) and her illegitimate children under Hindu law.3. Entitlement to maintenance from the estate of a deceased paramour.Detailed Analysis:1. Retrospective Application of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956:The primary question was whether the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, applied retrospectively. The High Court held that the relevant provisions of the Act applied only to the estates of Hindus dying after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the respondents' right to maintenance under the Hindu law in force at the time of Lingayya's death was not affected by the Act. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that sections 21 and 22 of the Act are prospective and do not affect vested rights of maintenance that existed before the Act's commencement.2. Status and Rights of a Permanently Kept Concubine (Avaruddha Stree) and Her Illegitimate Children Under Hindu Law:The court examined whether a married woman who left her husband and lived with another man as his permanently kept mistress could be regarded as an Avaruddha Stree. The High Court found that the first respondent was an Avaruddha Stree and entitled to maintenance from Lingayya's estate, despite her husband being alive and the connection with Lingayya being adulterous. The Supreme Court upheld this view, citing precedents that recognized the right of a permanently kept concubine to maintenance if she preserved sexual fidelity to her paramour.The court also addressed the issue of the illegitimate children of such a union. It was established that under the Hindu law before the Act, the illegitimate sons of a Sudra were entitled to maintenance from their father's estate, even if their mother was not a Dasi in the strict sense and the relationship was adulterous. The Supreme Court affirmed that the second, third, and fourth respondents were entitled to maintenance during their lifetime from Lingayya's estate.3. Entitlement to Maintenance from the Estate of a Deceased Paramour:The court analyzed whether the respondents were entitled to maintenance from Lingayya's estate. The claim of an Avaruddha Stree and her illegitimate children for maintenance was based on the express texts of the Mitakshara and supported by various precedents. The Supreme Court noted that the right to maintenance for an Avaruddha Stree and her illegitimate children was recognized under the Hindu law as it stood before the Act.The court also examined the impact of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, on this right. It was concluded that the Act did not affect the respondents' vested right to maintenance from Lingayya's estate, as this right was established before the Act's commencement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Act should be interpreted to respect vested rights and that sections 21 and 22 did not destroy or affect any pre-existing right of maintenance.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the respondents were entitled to maintenance from Lingayya's estate under the Hindu law as it existed before the commencement of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the concurrent findings regarding the quantum of maintenance were not interfered with.