Judgment.-The plaintiffs, here appellants, claim maintenance at a rate higher than that decreed to them by the trial Court. The parties are members of an Aliyasanthana family of which the first defendant is the ejamanthi. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the children of the first plaintiff and the first plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8 are the daughters and sons of the first defendant. There were 28 members of the branch of the first defendant on the date of suit, and the properties out of which maintenance is now claimed by the plaintiffs were allotted to the branch of the first defendant under an award, Exhibit D-39, dated 12th February, 1932. Though the suit, was laid for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 as arrears of maintenance for the period from 1st May, 1934, till 25th October, 1945, the Court below granted a decree only for Rs. 2,668-6-0, for the period from July, 1941 to 25th October, 1945. On appeal an additional sum of Rs. 2,681-4-0 is claimed as maintenance for this period, the claim for the earlier years having been given up. Mr.. Adiga for the appellants contends that the Court below has grossly under-estimated the available income of the family and has not applied the correct legal principles in determining the rate at which maintenance should be paid to the different plaintiffs. The following is common ground:The family house is at Kotadadi and the income of the family consists of rents, both cash and kind, received from its landed properties. The first defendant’s husband, Subbayya Shetti of Marakada, was himself an affluent member of his family with a considerable income of his own, which he spent on himself and his children. He died in February, 1944. He purchased a town-house in Mangalore for the occupation of himself and his family. In 1934 the first defendant set up an establishment at Mangalore referred to in the evidence and in this judgment as the Mangalore bidar, intended mainly for the education of the children of her prolific family. Supplies of rice, straw, firewood, cocoanuts, vegetables, jaggery and fuel were sent from Kotadadi to Mangalore whenever necessary, and a mess was run at the Mangalore bidar. Supplies of rice, straw, firewood, cocoanuts, vegetables, jaggery and fuel were sent from Kotadadi to Mangalore whenever necessary, and a mess was run at the Mangalore bidar. Day to day cash expenses incurred in the purchase of groceries and the like were also met, sometimes out of the family funds and sometimes from contributions made by or on behalf of the members of the family. The youngsters of the family who were receiving education at Mangalore were housed and fed at the Mangalore bidar, and their parents, whenever they happened to go to Mangalore, stayed with them. There was a residential family house and an establishment maintained at Kotadadi for the members of the family. Accounts of the receipts and disbursemerits of the family were kept by or on behalf of the first defendant, but these accounts are not now available, the sons of the first defendant charging one another with the responsibility for their non-production. The first defendant being an old lady depended on one or other of her sons for the management of the properties, is not wholly to blame for the non-production of the accounts. There is, however, available a rough account of receipts and expenses maintained by the 8th defendant for the period beginning from January, 1944. On 22nd October, 1941, the plaintiffs, through their advocate, gave notice to the first defendant claiming arrears as well as future maintenance separately for themselves. The first plaintiff’s husband, Ramanna Rai, has been in Government service, and the first plaintiff and some of their children were staying with him wherever he happened to be employed and also in the Mangalore bidar for various periods of time. During the period from July, 1941, till April 1944, there was a working arrangement under which the members of the family who lived at the Mangalore bidar agreed to share the expenses, though some of them paid and the others did not pay regularly. The first plaintiff’s husband paid the charges incurred for the upkeep of his wife and children whenever they or any of them stayed in the Mangalore bidar during this period. This arrangement, however, ceased to be in force after April, 1944. All the plaintiffs lived in the Mangalore bidar from July to December, 1942. The first plaintiff’s husband paid the charges incurred for the upkeep of his wife and children whenever they or any of them stayed in the Mangalore bidar during this period. This arrangement, however, ceased to be in force after April, 1944. All the plaintiffs lived in the Mangalore bidar from July to December, 1942. From January, 1943, till the end of March, 1944, plaintiffs 2 and 3, and from April, 1944 till April, 1945, plaintiffs 2 to 6 lived in the Mangalore bidar. None of the plaintiffs lived there after April, 1945. The bulk of the family income consists of the rice rents received from tenants. Since the price of rice varies from time to time its conversion value also varies, and the maintenance awardable to the members of the family after deduction of the common family expenses, would also vary from year to year. The learned Judge has granted a decree at varying rates for the different periods for which maintenance was awarded. Mr. Adiga for the appellants argues that in arriving at the net income of the family from which maintenance was payable to the plaintiffs, the learned Judge erred in deducting the expenses of the Mangalore bidar and that the only legitimate deductions that could be made were the expenses of the family and its establishment at the family house at Kotadadi. He contends that not only the children of female members of the family but also the wives and children of the male members were fed at the Mangalore bidar when they happened to go there, and that the expenses incurred on this account should not be deducted in arriving at the net income of the family available for distribution to the plaintiffs. He further maintains that the learned Judge erred in treating all members of the family alike, including majors and minors, and those who contributed to the Mangalore bidar and those who did not, and in giving the plaintiffs only a pro rata maintenance by dividing the net income of the family by the number of the members for the time being. No objection was taken to the other deductions like Viniyagas, Ejamanthi’s expenses, building repairs, etc., allowed by the Court below from the gross receipts before arriving at the net income of the family available for distribution as maintenance to the members of the family, but objection was taken to the computation of the total income of the family made by the learned Judge. I have been referred by learned counsel to some decisions of this Court dealing with the rights of junior members in an Aliyasanthana or Marumakkathayam family. Marumakkathayam or Aliyasanthana Law as administered to-day by the Courts, though resting on ancient usage, has largely been moulded by judicial decisions. So far as this branch of the law is concerned, Courts have not been inelastic, unyielding or unwilling to respond to social and economic changes and the needs of a progressive society. The old customary law did not recognise the union of man and wife as a valid or binding marriage, but regarded it as a state of concubinage into which the woman entered of her choice and was at liberty to change when she pleased. But to-day such unions are as permanent and sacred as the matrimonial ties recognised in other systems of law, and this Court has held that the reasonable expenses of the marriage of a member of a Marumakkathayam or Aliyasanthana family have to be provided for by the tarwad if it has the means to do so. It was thought at one time that a junior member of a tarwad had a right to be maintained only in the family house and had no right to separate maintenance if he or she resided elsewhere. This resulted not only in the over-crowding of tarwad houses but also in retarding the growth of family ties and affection between the spouses and in acting as a clog upon the enterprise and initiative of the junior members of the tarwad. It had long ago become a recognised practice in the West Coast for a woman to live with her husband and her children. To-day a junior member who leaves the tarwad house to live separately with her husband and children is entitled to separate maintenance, and a male who lives separately from the tarwad in order to pursue his vocation or for other reasonable cause, is likewise entitled. To-day a junior member who leaves the tarwad house to live separately with her husband and children is entitled to separate maintenance, and a male who lives separately from the tarwad in order to pursue his vocation or for other reasonable cause, is likewise entitled. Formerly a right to maintenance meant only a right to sufficient food, raiment and a small quantity of oil. To-day the right includes a right to “menchilavu” or extra expenditure necessary for leading a comfortable life consistently with the status, dignity and the means of the family and the needs of its members under the conditions of modern life. In 1898, in Krishnan v. Govinda Menon 1 , this Court, while recognising the obligation of a karnavan to educate the junior members of the tarwad, declared that it was not incumbent on him to “give the junior members education through the medium of the English language or on western lines” and declined to order the karnavan to pay the school fees and other expenses incurred in imparting English education to the junior members on western lines. In 1907 this Court held in Neelakanta Thuruvambi v. Ananthanarayana Aiyar 2 , that in the case of a well-to-do family the imparting of education in English to the junior members of the family was a necessary and proper purpose for which the funds of the tarwad could be spent and the properties of the tarwad could be made liable. Having regard to the high percentage of literacy in Kerala and Canara and to the very large number of people from this part of the country employed in public services both in India and outside, and also in the pursuit of other avocations, the imparting of school or collegiate education to the junior members of the family must now be held to be a legitimate purpose for which the karnavan or ejman is entitled to spend the funds of the tarwad so long as the expenditure is reasonable and consistent with the income of the tarwad and the needs of the other members of the family.. If there is no facility for imparting education in or near the tarwad house and there are- several boys and girls that have to be educated in schools or colleges, there is nothing improper in the ejman or karnavan setting up a separate establishment in a city where educational facilities are available and providing for the residence and mess of the students who pursue their studies. Judge-made law must be stable, but yet it cannot stand still ignoring the progress of society and the march of events. I hold the maintenance of the Mangalore bidar for the education of boys and girls of the Kotadadi family was a proper and necessary purpose for which the ejmanthi, the first defendant, was entitled to spend a reasonable portion of the income of the family properties. Some of the plaintiffs themselves have taken advantage of this establishment at Mangalore and I cannot accept Mr. Adiga’s contention that the expenses of the Mangalore bidar should be left out of consideration in fixing a rate of maintenance for the junior members of the family. The fact that the husbands of the ladies or the children of the male members of the tarwad came and stayed at intervals at the Mangalore bidar, does not result in the karnavan becoming liable to account in respect of the expenses incurred by him for their food and lodging. I have no reason to think that people in the West Coast insist on such, a sordid accounting by their karnavan. Nor does the law compel me to order the karnavan to account for the expenses incurred by him in receiving and maintaining guests or near relations of the family. With regard to the right of a junior member of an Aliyasanthana or Marumakkathayam family to maintenance, Mr. Adiga stressed the point that their right is not analogous to the right of the widow of an undivided coparcener in a Mitakshara family, but is of the same quality as the right of the male coparcener himself. It has no doubt been held in several decisions of this Court that a junior member of a tarwad is a co-proprietor of the tarwad properties with the karnavan and other members and that the right to maintenance is the mode in which this right of ownership is effectively exercised by the junior member. It has no doubt been held in several decisions of this Court that a junior member of a tarwad is a co-proprietor of the tarwad properties with the karnavan and other members and that the right to maintenance is the mode in which this right of ownership is effectively exercised by the junior member. At the same time, it has also been recognised that the karnavan has very large powers of administration of the tarwad properties and its funds, and the junior members cannot claim that the whole of the net income of the tarwad should be distributed among the several members or accounted for as if they were tenants-in-common. The Mitakshara rule of stirpital division does not apply. Each individual member can claim maintenance for himself or herself and as a rule maintenance is awarded per capita. But a junior member is not entitled to claim an aliquot share Of the net income of the tarwad properties and a karnavan is not accountable if he gives some members more than what he gives to others, so long as he gives to each what, under the circumstances, would be a reasonable, allowance for his or her subsistence. Ekanat Thayu Kunji Ama v. Ekanat Shungunni Valia Kymal1. he needs and requirements of the different members of the family may vary according to their age, health and other circumstances. The karnavan has to incur expenses in connection with payment of revenue on the lands, repairs to buildings, renewal of kanoms, births and deaths, performance of the customary chartities, reception of guests and relatives, maintenance of the establishment, and similar items. A prudent karnavan might set apart a portion of the income of the tarwad in order to meet these charges year by year. It is by taking into account these several factors that the rate of maintenance awardable to each member of the family can be settled. In my opinion, the learned Judge has not misapplied any of the well-settled principles of law in fixing the rate of maintenance for the plaintiffs. I shall now proceed to consider the income from the tarwad properties during the period now in question and the amount that could be awarded as maintenance to the plaintiffs. In my opinion, the learned Judge has not misapplied any of the well-settled principles of law in fixing the rate of maintenance for the plaintiffs. I shall now proceed to consider the income from the tarwad properties during the period now in question and the amount that could be awarded as maintenance to the plaintiffs. [After dealing with the evidence His Lordship concluded.] Having given the matter my careful consideration, I am of the opinion that the ascertainment of the net income of the family and the outgoings of the family by the learned Subordinate Judge proceeds on a reasonable basis so far as the period now in suit is concerned. I must make it clear that I am not dealing with the rate of maintenance that may be awardable for the period subsequent to October, 1945 on the basis of the annual income of that period and that my decision is confined only to the amount that should be allowed for the period prior to the suit and has been arrived at on the somewhat inconclusive materials placed before the Court in this case. There is, however, one slight omission in the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The 7th plaintiff, who was not in the Mangalore bidar from the end of March, 1944, till April, 1945, should have been awarded 14 muras of rice for that period or their value of Rs. 140 in addition to what has been granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, and I grant a decree accordingly. Subject to this slight modification, the appeal will stand dismissed with costs. V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.