JUDGMENT K. Sankaran, C.J. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the lower court's decree in a suit for maintenance by the wife against her husband. The parties are Hindus governed by Mitakshara Law. The relationship is also admitted. The first plaintiff was married by the defendant in the year 1103 and the 2nd plaintiff was born to them in the year 1108. Soon after the birth of the child, the first plaintiff with the child was living away in her parent's house. Her case is that she did so because the defendant was not properly looking after her and was not prepared to take a separate house for the residence of herself and her husband. The first defendant on the other hand, contended that he was always prepared to maintain her and she could have lived with his own parents and that it was a misconduct on the part of the first plaintiff to have gone away to her parents. Regarding these controversies, there is only the interested evidence of the parties in support of their respective contentions. In the nature of the points to be decided in the present appeals, it is not very necessary to find which party was at fault. 2. In the year 1114, the defendant married again and soon after that marriage, the first plaintiff filed an application before the criminal court claiming separate maintenance for herself and the second plaintiff. This matter was compromised by the parties and the maintenance payable by the defendant was fixed at Rs. 5 for the first plaintiff and Rs.21/2 for the second plaintiff. It is common ground that defendant had been making payments at this rate up to the time of the present suit in the year 1956. In the suit, plaintiffs claimed enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 i.e., Rs. 50 for the first plaintiff and Rs. 25 for the second plaintiff. At this rate, past maintenance for 12 years was claimed. The claim was resisted by the defendant. The lower court fixed the rate payable at Rs. 50, i.e., Rs. 30 for the first plaintiff and Rs. 20 for the second plaintiff and decreed future maintenance at that rate. Past maintenance for 6 years was also decreed at the same rate. The defendant's appeal A. S. 317 is against this decree. The claim was resisted by the defendant. The lower court fixed the rate payable at Rs. 50, i.e., Rs. 30 for the first plaintiff and Rs. 20 for the second plaintiff and decreed future maintenance at that rate. Past maintenance for 6 years was also decreed at the same rate. The defendant's appeal A. S. 317 is against this decree. The points urged in that appeal are that past maintenance should not have been decreed and even if it could be allowed, it could not be at the rate of Rs. 50, and that the rate fixed by the lower court is excessive. In plaintiffs' appeal A. S. 588/1957, the points raised are that past maintenance for the full period of 12 years should have been decreed and that the plaintiffs' costs of the suit should also have been allowed. 3. The first point for decision is about the claim for past maintenance. The wife's claim for maintenance is a legal right and this right is not disputed by the defendant. The claim for past maintenance can arise only if there was a denial of the right or if there was a refusal to pay maintenance. In this case, there is the clear and unequivocal admission of the first plaintiff as PW 1 that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 71/2 as agreed at the time of the compromise entered into between the parties in the year 1114, was being regularly paid by the defendant up to the time of the suit. The plaintiff has been accepting these payments. She has also admitted that no demand was made at any time prior to the suit that maintenance should be paid at a higher rate. Thus, it is clear that all parties proceeded on the basis that what was being paid up to the time of the suit was reasonable and adequate for the maintenance of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cannot now turn round and say that past maintenance should have been paid at higher rate. They are estopped by their conduct from putting forward such a claim. It is a clear case of waiver and abandonment of any such claim, if there was scope for sustaining the claim for enhanced maintenance. The evidence of PW 1 shows that she had not to incur any debts for maintaining herself and her child during the said period. They are estopped by their conduct from putting forward such a claim. It is a clear case of waiver and abandonment of any such claim, if there was scope for sustaining the claim for enhanced maintenance. The evidence of PW 1 shows that she had not to incur any debts for maintaining herself and her child during the said period. The defendant could not be expected to keep aside any funds to meet a possible claim for enhanced maintenance. Under these circumstances, we are clearly and definitely of opinion that the plaintiffs' claim for past maintenance at any rate higher than the rate at which she had been accepting from the defendant, is unsustainable. Since maintenance had been paid at the agreed rate without default and had been accepted without protest, nothing can be awarded towards past maintenance. The defendant's appeal has to succeed to this extent. 4. Coming to the question of future maintenance, the defendant has a case that the rate of Rs. 50/- per month is too high. In view of his own admission, that his salary and allowance had gone up to over Rs. 400/- per month, we do not think that Rs. 50/- per month is unreasonable. He has also his Provident Fund besides the immovable property acquired by him. Thus, the rate fixed for future maintenance has only to be confirmed. We do not think that in respect of that matter the lower court's decree calls for any interference. 5. Plaintiffs' Appeal A. S. 588/1957 has to fail in view of the reason already stated. We have already found that plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for past maintenance. It follows that her objection that the lower court went wrong in awarding only 6 years' past maintenance has only to be repelled. The next question is about costs. The parties have succeeded in part only and hence the proper order as to costs is to direct them to bear their own costs. 6. In the result, A. S. 317/1957 is allowed to the extent indicated above and the lower court's decree awarding past maintenance to the plaintiffs is set aside. In other respects that appeal is dismissed and the lower court's decree is confirmed. A. S. 588/1957 is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.