Codifying statute and maintenance rights: Section 39 protection survives, and charges on alienated property are limited to necessity.

A codifying statute is exhaustive only on matters it expressly covers, so the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 did not displace a Hindu wife's right to invoke Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act against alienated property. The wife could therefore proceed against transferees with notice. The law also permits a charge over such property to secure maintenance, but only to the extent necessary to satisfy the maintenance claim, with property still in the husband's hands ordinarily to be proceeded against first for past maintenance. The decree creating the charge was accordingly remitted for limited determination of extent and execution order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 displaced a Hindu wife's right to rely on Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of alienated property; (ii) whether a charge could be created over the alienated properties for the wife's maintenance and, if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 displaced a Hindu wife's right to rely on Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of alienated property.

Analysis: The Act was held to be a codifying statute, but its exhaustiveness extended only to matters specifically dealt with by it. Section 28 of the Act was confined to the rights of dependents and did not deal with the wife's right of maintenance against transferred property. Section 4 barred pre-existing law only where the Act expressly provided for the matter or where another law was inconsistent with the Act. Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act was neither covered by Section 4 nor inconsistent with the Act in relation to a wife's maintenance right.

Conclusion: The wife's right to rely on Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act was not displaced, and she could still invoke it against transferees with notice.

Issue (ii): Whether a charge could be created over the alienated properties for the wife's maintenance and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: Where property is transferred with notice of the wife's maintenance right, the alienation does not defeat that right, and the court may secure effective enforcement by charging the property. At the same time, the charge should be confined to such extent of the available properties as is sufficient to satisfy the maintenance decree, and the properties still in the husband's hands should ordinarily be proceeded against first for past maintenance.

Conclusion: A charge could be created, but only to the limited extent necessary to satisfy the maintenance claim, and the matter required remand for fixation of that extent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the legal basis for a charge in favour of the wife was affirmed, but the decree creating the charge was set aside and the matter was remitted for a limited determination of the property extent to be charged and the order of execution.

Ratio Decidendi: A codifying statute is exhaustive only on the subject actually dealt with by it, and a prior law is not displaced unless the later enactment expressly covers the point or is inconsistent with it.

---