JUDGMENT A.P. Srivastava, J. - This application in revision has been filed by Defendants against a decree passed by the Judge small Cause Court of Moradabad against them in a suit filed by Smt. Rukmani Devi. The Plaintiff is the mother of one Shanti Prasad who was carrying on the business of plying trucks and lorries in partnership with several other persons one of whom was Hira Lal. Shanti Prasad executed a will on 10-7-1946 by which he provided, among other things, after his death out of the net income of the lorry business Hira Lal, the Managing Director, shall pay Rs. 20 per month to his mother, the present Plaintiff, so that she could maintain herself. The Plaintiff alleged that after the death of Shanti Prasad, Hira Lal paid the monthly allowance for some time, but then difference arose between him and the Respondents who are the widow and son of Shanti Prasad. As a result of these disputes Hira Lal withdrew from business and the applicants began to manage the business. The Plaintiff Smt. Rukmani Devi thereupon filed a suit against the applicants for the recovery of Rs. 320 on account of arrears of allowance together with Rs. 13 due on account of interest. 2. The suit was contested by the present applicants on various grounds. But we are concerned at present only with two of them. In the first place, they contended that the suit was not entertaintable by the Moradabad Court because no part of the cause of action had arisen at the place. The second contention raised was that the suit was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court as it fell under item 38 of the second schedule of the Small Cause Court Act. 3. The Judge, Small Cause Court, repelled the first contention on the ground that Shanti Prasad the testator, intented that the allowance should be payable to the Plaintiff at the place of her residence and, therefore, the Plaintiff could file the suit at Moradabad where she ordinarily resided. He rejected the second contention on the ground that suit did not relate to maintenance and did not, therefore, fall under item No. 38 of the second schedule of the Small Cause Court Act. He found in favour of the Plaintiff on other points and decreed the suit. 4. He rejected the second contention on the ground that suit did not relate to maintenance and did not, therefore, fall under item No. 38 of the second schedule of the Small Cause Court Act. He found in favour of the Plaintiff on other points and decreed the suit. 4. The Defendants have come up to this Court in revision and the two points mentioned above, which were rejected by the learned Judge Small Cause Court, have been reiterated in this Court. 5. The first point that, therefore, arises for decision is whether the suit could have been filed in the Moradabad Court on the ground that the Plaintiff resided there. 6. It does not appear to be necessary to go into the question becaufe the point relates only to territorial jurisdiction. u/s 21 of the CPC: No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where the issues are settled at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 7. In the present case the objection about the place of suing was certainly raised in the written statement but the Learned Counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that there has been any failure of justice on account of the plea being overruled. 8. The other contention appears to be more important. Under item 38 of the second schedule of the Small Cause Court Act a suit relating to maintenance is exempt from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court. The question, therefore, is whether the suit filed by the Plaintiff out of which this application in revision has arisen was a suit relating to maintenance. The provisions of the will on which the suit was based have already been mentioned. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicants is that the suit was in essence and form a suit for arrears of maintenance. The reply of the Learned Counsel for the opposite party, however, is that this suit was not a suit for maintenance at all, but it was only a suit for recovery of the arrears of allowance which had to be paid under the directions contained in Shanti Prasad's will. 9. The reply of the Learned Counsel for the opposite party, however, is that this suit was not a suit for maintenance at all, but it was only a suit for recovery of the arrears of allowance which had to be paid under the directions contained in Shanti Prasad's will. 9. The term 'maintenance' has not been defined in the Small Cause Court Act. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word 'maintain' means to provide with means of subsistance of necessaries of life, to pay or furnish the means for keeping up of, to support. Taking the word maintenance to have been used in this sense, it appears to be obvious that when the testator provided in his will that the monthly allowance was to be paid to the Plaintiff for the purpose of her maintaining herself, his intention was to provieh maintenance for her. That the allowance was meant for her maintaining herself out of it was stated by the Plaintiff in para. 10. The view that I am taking receives support from the following two cases. The first is the case of Amritomoya Dasia v. Bhogiruth Chundra. ILR 15 Cal. 164 One Uma Charan Haldar had left property by will to the Defendant upon the condition that he paid to her maintenance at a particular rate. She instituted a suit for the recovery of the arrears of maintenance so provided by the will and it was held that the suit related to maintenance within the meaning of the term as used in item 38 of the 2nd schedule of the Small Cause Court Act. It was stressed that a suit relating to maintenance as contemplated by that item was not necessarily a suit to establish a right to maintenance but included a suit for arrears of maintenance fixed by a will. 11. In the case of Munir-ud-din v. Samir-un-nissa Bibi, ILR 40 All. 52 the Plaintiff's father-in-law had executed a will by which he had given some property 10 the Defendant. He had provided that a sum of Rs. 36 per month be paid to the Plaintiff for her life and the amount had been made a charge on the bequeathed property. The Plaintiff sued for three years arrears of allowance and it was held that the suit was one relating to maintenance and was on that account exempt from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court. 12. 36 per month be paid to the Plaintiff for her life and the amount had been made a charge on the bequeathed property. The Plaintiff sued for three years arrears of allowance and it was held that the suit was one relating to maintenance and was on that account exempt from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court. 12. In support of his contention that the present suit did not fall under item No. 38, Learned Counsel for the opposite party relied on four cases. They are Masum Ali v. Mohsin Ali 1890 AWN 201 Mahadeo Rai v. Deo Narain Rai and others II ALJ 697 Annasami Sastrial and Ors. v. A. S. Ramasami Sastrial and Ors. 22 Indian Cases p. 39 and Saminatha Padaram v. Kuppu Udayan 13 Mad. LJR 471. I have carefully considered all these cases and all of them appear to be distinguishable. 13. In the case reported in 13 M.L.J. 471, referred to above, the suit was not a suit for maintenance at all. It was a suit to recover a certan quantity of paddy which the Defendant had agreed to pay to the Plaintiff under an agreemrnt by which he had purchased certain property of the Defendant. The amount sought to be recovered was, therefore, considered to be an allowance which was different in nature from a maintenance allowance, and was held to be in the nature of an annuity. The case in 22 Indian Cases p. 39, referred to above, has been referred to by the learned Judge Small Cause Court also. In that case there were three brothers who were bound to maintain their mother. In a partition they had divided their properties between themselves. The Defendant's father had undertaken to pay a certain quantity of paddy per year to the Plaintiff's father in consideration of the latter's maintaining the mother. The agreed quantity of paddy not having been paid for some time, the Plaintiff sued to recover the same and it was held that the suit was not one relating to. maintenance and was, therefore, cognizable by the Small Cause Court. It is not at all difficult to see that the suit in that case was not for arrears of maintenance, but for some thing due for having provided maintenance for a mother. 14. maintenance and was, therefore, cognizable by the Small Cause Court. It is not at all difficult to see that the suit in that case was not for arrears of maintenance, but for some thing due for having provided maintenance for a mother. 14. In the case of Mahadeo Rai v. Deo Narain Rai II ALJ 697, referred to above, also there was no question of maintenance. The widow of one Ram Khelawan had died and the Plaintiffs mother, Mst. Deokali had applied to the revenue court for the entry of her name. The application was opposed by the Defendant. A compromise was arrived at and the Defendant agreed to pay Rs. 30 a year to Mst. Deokali on the condition that she would withdraw her application for mutation. On the death of Mst. Deokali her heirs sued to recover the amount. The Plaintiff did not purport to claim the amount as his maintenance and it was also not mentioned in the compromise that the amount would be payable by way of maintenance. 15. In Masum Ali v. Mohsin Ali 1890 AWN 201 also the circumstances of the suit were held to be such that the right of maintenance or the amount of maintenance were not matters in issue required to be determined in the case. The case was really one of enforcement of an award by which a certain amount had become payable to the Plaintiff. 16. None of these cases, therefore, support the contention of the Learned Counsel for the opposite party that the suit filed by the Plaintiff in the present case did not relate to maintenance but related to something else. 17. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Judge Small Cause Court was not justified in taking the view that the suit was triable by him on the Small Cause Court side. As it fell under item No. 38 of the second schedule of the Small Cause Court Act he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. 18. In the end, it was urged that the power u/s 25 of the Small Cause Court Act was discretionary, and as a long time had elapsed since the decree was passed, this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. 18. In the end, it was urged that the power u/s 25 of the Small Cause Court Act was discretionary, and as a long time had elapsed since the decree was passed, this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. When, however, the point of jurisdiction was raised in the trial court and was incorrectly decided there appears to be no reason why the incorrect decision should be maintained. 19. The revision application is, therefore, allowed with costs and the Judge Small Cause Court is directed to return the plaint to the Plaintiff for presentation to proper court.