JUDGMENT Mukherjea, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of the Plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by her for recovery of arrears of maintenance out of the assets left by her father-in-law which are now vested in the Defendants as a Receiver in insolvency to the estate of her husband's brothers. The facts are simple and may be stated as follows: The Plaintiff is the widow of the eldest son of one Chandra Kanta Roy and her husband died during the lifetime of Chandra Kanta. After Chandra Kanta's death his properties were inherited by his three sons, viz., Suresh, Mukunda and Ramesh; and Ramesh, the youngest son, having subsequently died, Mukunda and Suresh got all the properties of their father. It is not disputed that under the Hindu law there is a legal obligation on the part of Mukunda and Suresh to maintain their brother's widow out of the estate left by Chandra Kanta and it is admitted that the Plaintiff had been maintained by her husband's brothers up to the time when they themselves were declared insolvents. On the 31st October, 1935, both the brothers were adjudged insolvents and the estate vested in the Defendant as Receiver. The Plaintiff now wants to recover her arrears of maintenance out of the estate of Chandra Kanta in the hands of the Receiver. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that the liability of the insolvent to pay maintenance allowance to their brother's widow being a debt provable in insolvency, the suit was not maintainable under sec. 28 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is the propriety of this decision that has been challenged before us in this appeal. 2. There is no doubt that the obligation on the part of the insolvents to pay maintenance allowance to the Plaintiff, arose, prior to their being adjudicated bankrupts and although the payments may have to be made in future, it would nevertheless be a debt provable in insolvency as laid down in sec. 34(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Mr. Bhattacharjee, who appears on behalf of the Appellant, has contended before us that it comes within the purview of the exception laid down in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 34(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Mr. Bhattacharjee, who appears on behalf of the Appellant, has contended before us that it comes within the purview of the exception laid down in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 34 and he relies in support of his argument upon the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Linton v. Linton L.R. 15 Q.B.D. 239 (1885). 3. We do not think that we can accept this contention as sound. The demand is not in the nature of unliquidated liabilities, nor can it be said that it was a debt excluded from the schedule on the ground that its value was incapable of being fairly estimated. In the case of Linton v. Linton L.R. 15 Q.B.D. 239 (1885), it was held by the Court of Appeal that future payments of alimony which the husband was ordered to pay to the wife by the Divorce Court are incapable of being valued and hence did not constitute a debt provable in bankruptcy; but the decision turned upon the peculiar nature of alimony. As was pointed out by Brett, M.R., in the case mentioned above, an alimony was a monthly or weekly payment which the husband had to make under orders of the Divorce Court not out of his property but out of his own personal earnings. The Court could discharge or modify the order if it liked and the amount could also be increased or decreased in proportion to the earning capacity of the husband. After the adjudication these earnings did not go to the Receiver for the benefit of the creditors but were enjoyed by the husband himself. The present case is quite different. The liability to pay maintenance allowance to the brother's widow is not a personal liability on the part of the insolvents. It is a liability which has got to be met from the property which they inherited from their father and this property is now vested in the Receiver for the benefit of the creditors. If the Plaintiff had a charge declared upon the property in respect of her maintenance allowance by a competent Court, the Receiver might have been compelled to pay the money out of the estate in his hands; but as there is no charge declared, she can only rank as an ordinary creditor and can prove the liability in insolvency proceedings. Mr. Mr. Bhattacharjee says that she can claim allowance under sec. 66 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. If she is so entitled, she can make the necessary application to the Insolvency Court. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this matter but in our opinion the suit against the Receiver is not maintainable at all and it has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below.We accordingly dismiss the appeal but make no orders as to costs. Boxburgh, J. I agree.