https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200193 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. en-us Thu, 01 Oct 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:58:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200193 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Oct 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200193