TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (6) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f ₹ 22,500. On 16-12-1959, the plaintiff sued her husband for maintenance and for a charge over the A and B schedule properties in respect of it. 2. Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar contends that the courts below were wrong in granting charge in favour of the plaint A schedule properties. He says that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, which is an amending and codifying law on the subject of maintenance, lays down the entire law as to that matter so that the right to follow property alienated by a person liable to maintain dependents out of a deceased's properties, with notice on the part of the alienees, is now confined to dependents as defined in that Act, and that, therefore, a wife who is not a dependent under the Act, is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such estate or any part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer for consideration and without notice of the right. 4. This section has been framed on the pattern of S. 39 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. Being an amending and codifying law, says Mr. Ramamurti Iyar, the Act should be taken to be exhaustive on the subject-matter and applying this principle, he says, S. 28 contains the entire law relating to the effect of transfer of property in relation to right to maintenance. He deduces, therefore, that since this section covers only dependents and should be taken to be exhaustive, a wife is not entitled to follow up t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s with a certain subject it must be taken that the law so amended and codified is exhaustive of the subject to the extent to which it has dealt with it. But the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 itself contains an interpretation section, which is Sec. 4. That provides for the overriding effect of the Act and save- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act--(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al with the wife's right and is only confined to dependents and is, therefore, not exhaustive and a Hindu wife is still entitled to rely on S. 39 of the Transfer of Property Act which is entirely left unaffected by the 1956 Act. 8. The finding of the courts below in this case is that the appellants purchased the property with notice of the right of the plaintiff to maintenance. Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar contends that S. 39 by itself does not create a charge and as S. 28 of the 1956 Act is exhaustive she is not entitled to a charge. He argues that all the plaintiff can do is to follow the A schedule properties and that she is not entitled to a charge on that account. I have already held that S. 28 does not deal with the wife's right and ....