AMIREDDI RAJAGOPALA RAO AND OTHERS versus AMIREDDI SITHARAMAMMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 122 · Decided: 18-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

122 
AMIRE'.DDI RAJAGOPALA RAO AND OTHERS 
v. 
AMIREDDI SITHARAMAMMA AND OTHERS 
February 18, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. R. MuDHOLKAR. R. s. BACHA· 
B 
WA!f AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J 
Hindu Law-Married Brahmin woman becomina. concubine of 
Sudra male-having children-Their rights of maintenance-Whether 
such rights affected by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 
1956. 
The first respondent S, a Brahrnin woman married to R, during 
the lifetime of her husband became the permanently kept concubine 
of L, a sudra by caste. The other thre~ respondents were the sons 
of S & L. After L's death, in a suit filed by the respondent against 
L's brother and their sons (the appellants here), the sub-judge, by 
a decree dated September 20, 1954, awarded maintenance to the res-
pondents during their life-time out of the estate of L and this award 
was upheld on appeal by the High Court. During the pendency oi 
the appeal before the High Court, the Hindu Adoptions and Main· 
tenance Act of 1956 came into force and upon a contentoon being 
raised before it, the High Court held that the relevant provisions of 
tne new Act did not have retrospective effect so as to adversely 
affect the rights of maintenance available to the. respondents under 
the Hindu Law before the Act came into force. 
In appeal before the Supreme Court, it was contended on b~half 
of the appellants (1), that the respondents were not entitled to claim 
any maintenance from the estate of L under the Hindu Law in 
torce before the 1956 Act because· (a) the first respondent was not 
a Dasi and the other three respondents were not Dasiputraa of L; 
(b) the husband of the first respondent having been alive, her con· 
nection with L was adulterous and she could not therefore be entitled 
to maintenance as an Avaruddha Stree and (c) the first respondent 
being a Brahmin adulteress and L being a Sudra. the connection was 
Prwti!oma and illegal. (2) That in any event, by virtue of s. 4 of the 
1956 Act, the Hindu Law prior to that Act cease<l to have effect with 
respect to matters for which provision was made in the Act and that 
provision for maintenance, etc. had in fact been made in sections 21 
and 22 of the Act. 
HELD: (1) The respondents were entitled to maintenance during 
their lives out of the estate of L under the Hindu Law as it stood 
before the 1956 Act came into force. [127 Dl 
a 
D 
• 
r 
G 
(a) It was well recognised that 
independently of the express 
texts of the Mitakshara, whereby, in the case of Sudras the Dasiputra 
was entitled to a share od' the inheritance, the illegitimate son of a H 
Sudra was entitled to maintenance out of his father's estate though 
his mother was not a Dasi in the strict sense and though he was the 
result of a casual or adulterous relationship. f125 Cl 
Mitakshara Ch. I, S. 12 V. 1, 2 and 3 referred to; Case law 
reviewed. 
(b) Under Mitakshar.. law, a married woman who left her hus-
band and lived with her paramour as his permanently kept mis.tress 
could claim the status of an Avaruddha Stree by remaii).ing faithful 
' 
RAJAGUPALA V, SITHARAMAMM.A (Bachawat, J.) 
123 
A 
to her paramour, even though the connection was adulterous, and 
she was entitled to maintenance from the estate of the paramour 
so long as she preserved sexual fidelity to him. (125 H, 126 BJ 
Akku Prah!ad v. Ganesh Prah!ad LL.R. [19451 Born. 216 affirmed 
Case law reviewed. 
(c) A Brahmin concubine in the exclusive and continuous keep. 
ing of a Sudra until his death was entitled to claim maintenance. 
'B 
[127 BJ 
Case law referred to. 
(2) Seciions 21 and 22 are in terms prospective and these sections 
read with section 4 did not destroy or ~ect the right of mainten-
ance of the respondents which vested in them on the death of L 
and before the commencement of the 1956 Act. [126 F; 129 AJ 
Cl 
S. Kameshwaramma v. Subramanyam A.LR. 1959 Andhra Pra-
desh 269; distinguished. 
CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 434 of 
1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 22, 1960, of• 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No. 709 of 1954. 
D 
A. Ranganadham Chetty, A. Vedavalli and A. V. Rangam, 
for the appellants. 
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered ·by 
Bachawat, J. The first respondent, Seetharamamma, is a 
B Brahmin woman. She was married to one Ramakrishnayya. During 
the life-time of her husband she became the concubine of one 
Lingayya, a Sudra by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.