VYAWAŚrHA&DARP, 331 although the obligation imposed upon him be indefinite, that a court of equity will define it, by adverting to circumstances, and aid her in the enforcement of such advantages, as the possessor of her husband's wealth is bound in conscience to confer. Con. H. L. pp. 62, 68. That Mādhabí Dási had a right to be maintained out of her husband's wealth is certain; and when that wealth was to be divided, among so many, the justice of providing a fund for her support, cannot be questioned; for no one of the partitioners being bound to supply her with the necessaries of life, it was just to secure her against want by ajoint contribution. Con. H. L. pp. 68, 69. IV. On partition of the property of a deceased Hindu amongst his sons, it was held that, after the partition, they were each liable for a share of the maintenance of their father's widow. Kamalmani Dási versus Rams Nāth Basāk. S. C. 30th March 1843. Fulton. Wlo. I. p. 189. Morley's Digest. Vol. 1. pp. 440, 441. A Hindu leaves all his property to his sons by will, and a partition is effected amongst them according to the terms of his will. The court will grant maintenance to his widow after the partition, and direct each of the sharers to contribute—Ibid. The right of the widow, under such circumstances, does not extend beyond maintenance, and she has no right to a share of the property in lieu of maintenance on partition.—Ibid. A Hindu widow will not be entitled to arrears of maintenance if she has been guilt of delay in the prosecution of her suit, and her maintenance will be calculated from the date of the decree.—Ibid. Litigation having taken place between parties in which the contest was whether the plaitiff (a Hindu widow) was entitled to a share of the estate of her deceased husband, but in which it did not appear that the question as to maitenance was directly raised; it was held that such proceedings did not act as a bar to her right of maintenance.—Ibid. In the construction of a Hindu's will his widow's right to maintenance will never be barred by implication.—Ibid. IIindu females cannot be deprived of their right to maintenance by a will, which does not expressly exclude them though the whole estate be left to others. Rání Hara Sundari versus Kunwor Krishna Náth. S. C. 1st March 1841. Fulton Wol. I. p. 396. V. A Hindu widow has no claim upon her step-grandson, or her stepson's widow, for maintenance, while she has a stepson living, who alone is bound to maintain her, even though the others are in joint possession with him of her late husband's estate. Krishnānanda Choudhuri versus Musst. Rukkini I)ebi. 15th February 1821. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. III. p. 70. I. Shiba Sundari Däss widow of one Golok Chandra who died during his father Rām Mohan's lifetime voluntarily left the family house, and sued the defendants who were the surviving sons and representatives of the other sons of Râm Mohan, for separate maintenance: a verbal reference had been made to three respectable Hindus—Kāshí Náth Mallik, Gobinda Chandra Bánariyā, and Rām Mohun Neogi, who awarded 12 Rs. ੋr month as a sufficient allowance to her, she being allowed appartments in the family house, and food. Peel. C. J.--"We think that she is entitled to a separate maintenance. The words ‘food and, raiment' being too vague and ambiguous an expression, we must refer it to the Master to enquire and report whether the amount offered was just and proper with reference to her situation in life.”—Shibasundari Dási versus Krishna Kishore Neogí and others. 25th March 1851. 8. C. (in equity.) Taylor and Bell's Ileports, Vol. II. part IV. pp. 190, 191. Cuscs bearing on the vyavasthis No8.7 157, 158 & 159.
