Prospective maintenance rights under Hindu law cannot reach the estate of a father who died before the statute commenced.

The Mitakshara rule denying maintenance to an illegitimate daughter was treated as not violating Article 14, because the absence of such maintenance was not regarded as hostile classification. Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 were construed prospectively: the Act created a new maintenance right against living parents, and Section 22 applied only to the estate of a Hindu who died after the Act commenced. No claim could therefore be made against the estate of a person already dead before the Act came into force.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Mitakshara rule denying maintenance to an illegitimate daughter violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 entitled the appellants to claim maintenance from the estate of a putative father who had died before the Act came into force.

Issue (i): Whether the Mitakshara rule denying maintenance to an illegitimate daughter violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The rule did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination merely because it did not provide maintenance to an illegitimate daughter. The absence of a provision for such maintenance was not treated as a hostile classification offending Article 14.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 14 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 entitled the appellants to claim maintenance from the estate of a putative father who had died before the Act came into force.

Analysis: Section 20 created a new and prospective right of maintenance against living parents and did not operate retrospectively. Section 21 defined an illegitimate daughter as a dependant, but Section 22, read as a whole, was held to apply only where the Hindu died after the commencement of the Act and the estate was taken thereafter by the heirs. The statutory scheme did not create a right to claim maintenance from the estate of a person already dead before the Act commenced.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to maintenance from the estate of a person who had died before the Act came into force.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the constitutional challenge and the statutory claim both failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A right of maintenance created by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is prospective unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication makes it retrospective, and Section 22 applies only to the estate of a Hindu who dies after the commencement of the Act.

---