Hindu joint family maintenance rights survive despite partition remedies, and claims lie against the joint family estate.

A minor coparcener and a daughter in an undivided Hindu joint family may maintain a suit for maintenance against the family manager, even though a right to partition exists. The right to maintenance was treated as an inherent incident of coparcenary and joint ownership, arising from the joint family property itself and continuing while the family remains joint. The Court rejected the view that a coparcener must first sue for partition before claiming maintenance, and also rejected the contention that a daughter can proceed only against her father, since the obligation is enforceable against the joint family estate as a whole.

---

---

Issues: Whether a minor coparcener and a daughter in a Hindu joint family can maintain a suit for maintenance against the manager of the family notwithstanding the existence of a right to partition.

Analysis: The right of a member of an undivided Hindu family to be maintained out of the family estate was treated as an inherent incident of coparcenary and joint ownership, not as a substitute for partition. The Court relied on Privy Council authority to hold that the right to maintenance springs from the joint family property itself and continues so long as the family remains joint. It rejected the view that a coparcener must first or only sue for partition before claiming maintenance, and also rejected the proposition that a daughter must proceed only against her father, since the obligation is enforceable against the joint family property as a whole. The Bombay authorities were held not to state the law applicable in Madras.

Conclusion: The suit for maintenance was maintainable, and the appeal was allowed with remand for disposal of the remaining issues.

---