S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 42 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, kovur, Nellore District enhancing the maintenance by one putti of paddy or market value thereof per year from the date of the suit in addition to the maintenance of 21/2 putties per year already granted to her. ( 2 ) THE only point that arises for consideration is whether the step-son is under an obligation to maintain the stepmother having a child. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to a decision reported in P. Rangaiah v. P. Chinnaiah1, the relevant portion reads as under. "from the aforesaid discussion, the following principles of law emerge:- (1) Where one of the members of an undivided Hindu family dies leaving a widow and other coparceners, the widow shall have a right of maintenance against the surviving coparcener or coparceners for the share or interest of her deceased husband in joint family property which was in his hands. (2) The obligation to maintain a widow, depends upon the taking of the deceased husband s share in the family estate and she will have no right to claim maintenance out of the shares that fall to the other members. (3) The right of a Hindu woman or widow to maintenance is founded on relationship. (4) Where there are several groups of sons, the maintenance of their mothers must, so long as the estate remains joint, be a charge upon the whole estate, but when a partition is made, their maintenance is distributed according to relationship, the sons of each mother being bound to maintain her. (5) A step-son has no statutory obligation to maintain his stepmother unless any portion or share of his father in the joint family property is allotted, devolved or taken by him, whereas in the case of a son, natural or adopted, and a husband, the primary liability to maintain his mother or wife as the case may be is a matter of personal obligation arising out of relationship, irrespective of their possession of ancestral or self-acquired property. (6) A maintenance holder, can obtain a decree for maintenance against a member of the undivided family and create a charge over the joint property when their family was joint. (6) A maintenance holder, can obtain a decree for maintenance against a member of the undivided family and create a charge over the joint property when their family was joint. (7) When once her right to maintenance has been declared, defined and reduced to a certainty by a decree of Court, such rights cannot be taken away by any subsequent alienation of such property by, or partition of such property effected amongst, the members of that family. (8) The heart of the matter is that the charge secured in lieu of maintenance by a Hindu woman or a widow on the joint family properties is not defeated by any subsequent alienation or partition of those properties but it is liable to be enforced in respect of such properties in whatsoever hands they may be. (9) Any person including the step-son of a maintenance holder, who was a member of the Hindu joint family at the time of the institution of the maintenance suit and the creation of a charge towards the decree obtained by her on the joint family properties, cannot question her right over such properties, in case such properties or any portion of the same are allotted to him in a subsequent partition or devolved on him. (10) The charge created on those properties prior to the division of the family will be subsisting and continue till the lifetime of the maintenance holder and the rights of any third party, if any, in such properties will be only subject to the charge created in her favour. " ( 3 ) IT is clearly stated in this case that stepson has no statutory obligation to maintain his step-mother unless any portion or share of his father in the joint family property is allotted or devolved or taken by him. ( 4 ) IT is also clearly adumbrated that a case of step-son and natural son stands on a different footing. Section 20 of Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 reads as under:"20. Maintenance of children and aged parents: (1) Subject to the provision of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her life time, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. (2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother, so long as the child is a minor. (2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother, so long as the child is a minor. (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property. "explanation: In this section "parent" includes childless step-mother ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant mainly lays stress on the word parent as mentioned under Section 20 of Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which includes a childless step mother. He contends that, if the step-mother has child or daughter there is no obligation on the part of step-son to maintain the step-mother who is having a daughter under the Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. (has no obligation. He is under an obligation to maintain a step mother.) (sic.) A close scrutiny of Section 20 of the said Act clearly shows that statute contemplates maintaining a childless step-mother, by her step-son. ( 6 ) SECTION 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 reads as under:"25. Amount of maintenance may be altered on change of circumstances: the amount of maintenance, whether fixed by a decree of court or by agreement, either before or after the commencement of this Act, may be altered subsequently if there is a material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration. " ( 7 ) THE rights accrued under a decree or an agreement either before or after commencement of this Act have been preserved under Section 25 of the Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is clearly stated that maintenance can be changed or may be altered if there is a material change of circumstances justifying such orders. A harmonious construction has to be given in between Sections 20 and 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 20 limits the scope of persons to be maintained, whereas Section 25 covers the persons entering into an agreement or a decree of the Court. It is a case, where there was a decree of the court in O. S. No. 78/46. Section 20 limits the scope of persons to be maintained, whereas Section 25 covers the persons entering into an agreement or a decree of the Court. It is a case, where there was a decree of the court in O. S. No. 78/46. The cases which are not covered by Sec. 20 and which ended in decree of a court also come within the purview of Section 25. If such interpretation is not given the intention expressed in Section 25, conferring the power on the court to enhance the amount of a decree obtained prior to the commencement of the Act will be defeated. ( 8 ) IN my considered opinion, the scope of section 25 is larger and cannot be limited to those things mentioned under Section 20. This decree obtained prior to the commencement of the Act, can be altered after taking the subsequent change of circumstances by virtue of powers under section 25. ( 9 ) IN view of the interpretation, I find that there is no illegality in enhancing the maintenance amount. The Court has got ample power to alter the maintenance amount after taking the changed circumstances by virtue of the powers under section 25 of the Act. It is also contended that he did not inherit any more property after the death and there is no change of circumstances to make or alter maintenance. If the cost of living including the increase in rate of paddy is taken into consideration there is always justification in enhancing the maintenance granted in kind (i. e. , paddy ). Both the courts have rightly given finding stating that circumstances have altered and in view of the changed circumstances the maintenance has to be enhanced. There is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. ( 10 ) THERE is no merit in this appeal. The second Appeal is dismissed and in the circumstances, no costs.