Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU J. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the Revenue under the Estate Duty Act, in respect of the estate of the late P. S. K. Moorthy, who died on August 7, 1976, leaving behind him his widow Smt. K. N. Sita, and an unmarried daughter Miss Saroja, is "whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the rejection of the applicant's claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 being the charge of the maintenance of wife and daughters and the provision for marriage expenses of the unmarried daughters in computing the value of estate for the purpose of the estate duty ?" The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (I) had rejected this claim by the accountable person on the ground that the same has not been provided for under the Estate Duty Act. That rejection was confirmed by the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, who during the course of his order referred to the Hindu Succession Act, and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CED v. Smt. P. Leelavathamma. It was held by the Appellate Controller that the wife and the daughter can have such a right only after initiating proper proceedings, and obtaining a decree and the claim for maintenance is not a charge or encumbrance on the assets of the deceased. The Tribunal upheld the view of the Assistant and Appellate Controller. The Tribunal has considered the authorities on which the assessee has relied before us. The Tribunal referred to the decision of this court in the case of Karuppana Gounder v. Chinna Nachammal, 1974 AIR(Mad) 329, wherein it was held that the unmarried daughter is not entitled to any separate claim for marriage expenses as she has received her share in the family property. Learned counsel for the accountable person, however, placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma, and in support of his contention that even if no amount can be claimed as deduction for maintenance of the widow, the marriage expenses of the daughter can be claimed. In the case of CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma, and in support of his contention that even if no amount can be claimed as deduction for maintenance of the widow, the marriage expenses of the daughter can be claimed. In the case of CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma, this court observed as under: "The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides, inter alia, for the obligation of a Hindu father to perform, and spend for, the marriage of his unmarried daughter. The liability, however, is not declared by the Act to be an automatic charge on the father's property in every case. The relevant provision in section 27 of the Act lays down that the liability can be enforced against the father's estate after his death only if a specific charge in that regard has been created either under his will, or under an agreement binding on him, or under a court decree. These statutory provisions, however, do not affect the daughter's independent right under her personal law to render ancestral property liable for her maintenance and marriage." That decision was considered by another Division Bench of this court which included one of the learned judges who decided that case, in the case of G. Shenbagammal v. CED. Dealing with the earlier decision, the court observed as under: "We are of the view that the obligation of the father to perform and spend for the marriage of his unmarried daughter and his obligation to maintain his wife, now statutorily provided for under section 19(1) of the Act and other provisions, cannot be viewed on the same footing. The decision relied on was rendered on the basis that the provision for the marriage of a daughter of the deceased can be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, as it is a debt for which the law imposes a liability on the ancestral properties, which the deceased died possessed of. A claim for deduction from the dutiable estate of the right of maintenance, as we have in this case, governed by the statutory provisions, referred to earlier, was not considered there. Besides, in that decision, the liability to provide for the marriage expenses of an unmarried daughter was characterised as one referable to an imposition in that regard by the Hindu law. Besides, in that decision, the liability to provide for the marriage expenses of an unmarried daughter was characterised as one referable to an imposition in that regard by the Hindu law. However, under section 2 1 (v) of the Act, an unmarried daughter, so long as she remains unmarried, would be a dependant and the expression 'maintenance' with reference to her would include reasonable expenses of and incidental to her marriage, by reason of section 3(b)(ii) of the Act, and if she had obtained a share in the estate of her father under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the operation of section 22(2) of the Act cannot be excluded. We find that this aspect has not been adverted to" The decision in CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma, cannot be of any assistance to the applicant, as that decision, as pointed out by the later Division Bench, was rendered without adverting to all the relevant statutory provisions, and the right of a daughter to claim maintenance which is a statutory right would include the right of reasonable marriage expenses and such a claim under the Act can be enforced and it is only after a charge is created by the award of maintenance that the estate can be said to be encumbered. The view of the later Division Bench is amply supported by another decision of this court in the case of Karuppana Gounder v. Chinna Nachammal 1974 AIR(Mad) 329, wherein it was specifically held that the claim for maintenance would take in the reasonable expenses for the marriage of the unmarried daughter, and such a claim has to be worked out in terms of the Act. The Division Bench held that the textual Hindu law cannot be invoked at all. That judgment apparently had not been brought to the notice of the court which decided the case of CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma. In so far as the claim of the widow and of the unmarried daughter of the deceased for maintenance is concerned such a claim normally cannot be regarded as an encumbrance. That judgment apparently had not been brought to the notice of the court which decided the case of CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma. In so far as the claim of the widow and of the unmarried daughter of the deceased for maintenance is concerned such a claim normally cannot be regarded as an encumbrance. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Leelavathamma v. CED has held that the amount attributable to the value of the maintenance of the wife was not deductible, in computing the net principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased, in the absence of any evidence, to show that the estate of the deceased was burdened with any debt or incumbrance by reason of the failure of the deceased to act up to his statutory obligation. What was said about the widow applies with equal force to the claim of the daughter for maintenance. Admittedly, no charge had been created on the assets of the deceased. The answer to the question of law that has been referred to us, therefore, is that the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the rejection of the applicant's claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 as charge for maintenance of wife and unmarried daughter and the provision for marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter in computing the value of the estate for the purpose of the estate duty. The Revenue is entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 500.