JUDGMENT : Jyothindranath, J. 1. In this appeal, challenge is against the decree of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, awarding maintenance to the step mother. The father of the appellant executed a will. On the strength of a condition in the said will, the maintenance petition was filed by the petitioner before the court. The court allowed the petition. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal is as follows and the parties are referred to as shown in the original petition : Petitioner is the wife of one B.C.Edward. Edward executed a will during his lifetime wherein some properties are bequeathed in the name of the respondent, his son. The petitioner is the step mother of the respondent. That is, the second wife of late B.C.Edward. After the death of Edward, a suit for partition was filed by the petitioner herein as O.S.113/2000 before the Sub Court, Attingal. Excluding the properties included in the Will, all other properties were partitioned. There was earlier a suit filed as O.S.18/2004 before the Munsiff's Court, Attingal. It was a suit for injunction, restraining the respondent from alienating the property covered by the Will and it was settled by the assignee undertaking to pay Rs.3,75,000/-. It is an admitted case that a cheque given in this regard for Rs.3,00,000/- was dishonoured and the positive case of the petitioner is that she moved the application for maintenance only because the said amount was not given. 3. Thus, it can be seen that the point to be decided in this case is whether the condition imposed in the Will executed by the late B.C.Edward is enforcible. In this case, as per the Will, it is stated as follows : “LANGUAGE” 4. How far the recitals herein can be enforced is the question to be considered in this appeal. As per Section 122 of the Indian Succession Act, it is stated as follows : “Where a bequest imposes an obligation on the legatee he can take nothing by it unless he accepts it fully.” 5. Thus, what comes out is that, in this case, when the respondent legatee accepted the Will, he has also accepted the liability to maintain the petitioner. Then the next aspect to be looked into is whether the condition imposed is an impossible condition and by virtue of Section 126 of the Indian Succession Act, the condition can be treated as void. Then the next aspect to be looked into is whether the condition imposed is an impossible condition and by virtue of Section 126 of the Indian Succession Act, the condition can be treated as void. In this case, the condition is to maintain the step mother of the legatee. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the liability is illegal or an immoral condition. It can be seen that as per Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, in the case of Hindus, they are bound to maintain the dependents of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. Surely, in this case, the parties are Christians by religion. Thus, it can be seen that to impose a condition in a Will and to confer such a right upon a legal heir of the deceased cannot be termed as an illegal condition. When it is neither illegal nor impossible, it can be said that it is an enforcible condition imposed by the testator. By virtue of Section 87 of the Succession Act, the intention of the testator should be effectuated as far as possible. Surely, in this case the monthly maintenance amount was not quantified in the Will. The liability of the legatee will be to the extent of the property obtained as per the Will. In this case the trial court awarded a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. The annual maintenance will come only to Rs.36,000/-. In this case, the petitioner got a case that the properties are worth more than Rs.40 lakhs, whereas the respondent got a case that it worth only Rs.20 lakhs. The respondent has no case that the maintenance awarded is disproportionate to the property obtained by him as per the Will, or exceeding the estate derived. When such a contention is not therein, that aspect need not be looked into by this Court. The only point is whether maintenance can be awarded as per a condition imposed. The point is found favourable to the petitioner. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.