JUDGMENT : N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. 1. This appeal is presented challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.11.2008 passed in R.A. No. 114/2005 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Madhugiri wherein the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2005 passed in O.S. No. 116/2001 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Madhugiri, was modified. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their status before the trial court. 3. Plaintiff No. 1-Gowramma wife of late Siddappa filed a suit for herself and on behalf of her children plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. The original defendant-Eranna is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff. The marriage between the first plaintiff and one Siddappa son of Eranna-defendant was performed on 10.6.1992 at Kodagadala Village as per Hindu customs. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 were born. The first plaintiff's husband Siddappa died on 6.7.2000. She became helpless after loosing her husband and also was further loaded with responsibility of maintaining her two children. 4. She further claims that during the life time of her husband, they were enjoying the schedule property. But after his death, defendant and his wife (parents-in-law of first plaintiff) started ill treating the plaintiffs, they were neglected and driven out of the house. Therefore first plaintiff was compelled to take a house on rent and staying at Nagammanapalya along with her children. They were in dire straits. Though brothers of first plaintiff approached the defendant in this connection for help, the same was not materialized. It is stated that a complaint also came to be lodged by her against the defendant. Thereafter first plaintiff filed a suit before the trial Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 600/- for her and Rs. 300/- each for her children. 5. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. 6. The trial Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW-1 to 3 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P6 on behalf of plaintiffs and oral evidence of DW-1 to 4 and documentary evidence of Exs.D1 to 3. After considering the materials on file, the trial Judge partly allowed the suit and directed the defendant to pay maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to first plaintiff till her life time and Rs.200/- each to second and third plaintiffs till they attain majoring. 7. After considering the materials on file, the trial Judge partly allowed the suit and directed the defendant to pay maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to first plaintiff till her life time and Rs.200/- each to second and third plaintiffs till they attain majoring. 7. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court in R.A. No. 114/2005, which came to be partly allowed by modifying the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge. Against which, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. 8. The grievance of defendant firstly is that he is not liable to maintain widowed daughter-in-law as there is no legal liability as such. Secondly, he does not possess any ancestral properties. Thirdly, the appellate Court though set aside the order passed by the trial Court, but ordered for recovery of arrears, however the subsequent maintenance from the date of the disposal was cancelled. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents would submit that the plaintiff are the wife and children of son of original defendant. They were driven to helpless platform by the defendant-father-in-law. The first plaintiff is the widow of the son of the defendant. Further plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the first plaintiff. 10. On 27.8.2010, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in awarding the maintenance amount, with a direction to realize the maintenance amount from the assets of deceased appellant, especially when the plaintiffs have failed to prove, ancestral or co-parcenary nature of the property and he or husband having a share in it having regard to Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court could have directed maintenance amount payable out of the assets of deceased appellant when the order of maintenance passed by the trial court is set aside and the appellant having been held not liable to pay maintenance? 11. The following substantial question, of law is reframed today for consideration in this appeal: Whether the defendant/father-in-law not possessing any ancestral property but possessing only self acquired property is liable to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law and children of late Siddappa, who is the son of the defendant? 12. 11. The following substantial question, of law is reframed today for consideration in this appeal: Whether the defendant/father-in-law not possessing any ancestral property but possessing only self acquired property is liable to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law and children of late Siddappa, who is the son of the defendant? 12. The learned counsel for defendant/appellant submits that when there is no self acquired property, father-in-law is not duty bound to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law and her children. In other words, the defendant has no obligation to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law and children of his predeceased son. 13. The further development in the case is that the original defendant-father-in-law died during the proceedings before the First Appellate Court. But the matter did not get terminated, as Basamma wife of original defendant Eranna and mother-in-law of first plaintiff came on record by filing an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure claiming that being wife, she is entitled to represent her husband-deceased Eranna. 14. Further it is stated that said Basamma also died and the proceedings did not get terminated as the same is continued by one Gopal who is stated to be son of daughter of deceased Eranna and Basamma. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance. 16. Another aspect in this suit is that after the death of legal representative of defendant, the present appellant chose to come on record by representing that Eranna and Basamma, during their life time bequeathed the properties to him, thus claiming that he is entitled to come on record. The application was allowed and he has come on record. Incidentally that order is opposed by the plaintiffs. Regard being had to the fact that by making an application, the present appellant Gopal has demonstrated that the defendant Eranna was the owner of certain properties, however claimed as self acquired. 17. The moot question that arises in this matter is: Whether the father-in-law is liable to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law in the absence of ancestral property? Incidentally, for the original defendant Eranna, his maternal grand son-Gopal (present appellant) turned out to be more loveable and deserving to legacy though there are paternal grand children and daughter-in-law. 18. In the circumstances, in a joint family there are certain passion and emotions coupled with obligations which are both moral and legal. Incidentally, for the original defendant Eranna, his maternal grand son-Gopal (present appellant) turned out to be more loveable and deserving to legacy though there are paternal grand children and daughter-in-law. 18. In the circumstances, in a joint family there are certain passion and emotions coupled with obligations which are both moral and legal. The married lady, first plaintiff came into the house of the defendant after marrying his son and she got two children. The defendant/father-in-law claims that the agricultural land in Survey No. 20/1 measuring 2.10 guntas situated in Kodagadala village is his self-acquired property. 19. Regard being had to the fact that after the death of father-in-law, his widow came on record and she followed the suit of her husband again on the ground that property was not available, as it was self acquired. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiffs are also getting income from separate source. Regard being had to the fact that the source is not mentioned. 21. Sri. Harish H.V. learned counsel for the appellant would submit that plaintiffs have not challenged the order of negating the future maintenance, by the appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that first plaintiff is already in possession of one acre of the schedule property. 22. It is to be noted that widow daughter-in-law and her children cannot be made to starve without maintenance. Though the properties admittedly are possessed by the defendant have been bequeathed to the maternal grand son (who has chosen to come on record) under the Will said to have been executed by defendant and his wife, under the circumstances, the tradition of Hindu Law warrants that father-in-law (now deceased) was liable to maintain the plaintiffs. Upon his death, the property was devolved upon his wife as the same was self acquired property of the defendant. However, there is no finding from any competent authority that those properties are joint family properties. In the circumstances, I find the maintenance claimed at Rs. 600/- for the first plaintiff and Rs. 300/- for each of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 per month is reasonable and the trial Court trimming it to Rs. 400/- to first plaintiff and Rs. 200/- each to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 respectively is unreasonable. 23. In the circumstances, I find the maintenance claimed at Rs. 600/- for the first plaintiff and Rs. 300/- for each of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 per month is reasonable and the trial Court trimming it to Rs. 400/- to first plaintiff and Rs. 200/- each to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 respectively is unreasonable. 23. The Court takes judicial note of present day cost of living and difficulty for earning fistful of food to keep the body and soul together. Under the circumstances, the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Madhugiri, refusing future maintenance and confirming only with the arrears of maintenance is liable to be set aside as this is a case of maintenance claimed by the daughter-in-law for herself and her children. 24. In this connection, it is necessary to mention Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC, contemplates that, though plaintiffs/respondents have not preferred any appeal or objection in this regard, the Appellate Court shall have the jurisdiction to pass any order. Order XLI Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: "Order XLI Rule 33. Power of Court of Appeal:- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection [and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees]: Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under Section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order." 25. Thus as a mark of complying with social justice, in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary to mention that plaintiff No. 1 is entitled for future maintenance also. Since plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 who are respondent Nos. Thus as a mark of complying with social justice, in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary to mention that plaintiff No. 1 is entitled for future maintenance also. Since plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this appeal are late minors, as both are sons they are entitled for maintenance right from the date of filing of the Original suit i.e. from 9.7.2001 till attaining the age of majority. Insofar as plaintiff No. 1 is concerned, she is entitled for maintenance for her life time. The rate of maintenance shall be as determined by trial Court at the rate of Rs. 400/- to first plaintiff and Rs. 200/- each to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3), per month and the same period. However, right of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 for maintenance shall be confined till they attain the age of majority. 26. Insofar as arrears of maintenance is concerned, there shall be a primary charge on the property that is stated to be belonging to the defendant and his wife Basamma and now claimed by legatee Gopal. Therefore, the Judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Madhugiri in R.A. No. 114/2005 does not stand infront of reason reasonability. It is erroneous coupled with grave error and hence the same is liable to be set aside. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- considering the conduct of the appellant. 28. Judgment and decree dated 5.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and JMFC, Madhugiri in R.A. No. 114/2005 is hereby set aside. 29. The appellant is directed to pay maintenance. The rate of maintenance shall be as determined by trial Court at the rate of Rs. 400/- to first plaintiff and Rs. 200/- each to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3), per month and the stated above period i.e. from 9.07.2001 (date of filing the petition) till they attend Majority. However, right of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 for maintenance shall be confined till they attain the age of majority. 30. Insofar as arrears of maintenance is concerned, there shall be a primary charge on the property that belonged to the defendant and his wife Basamma and now claimed by legatee Gopal. 31. However, right of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 for maintenance shall be confined till they attain the age of majority. 30. Insofar as arrears of maintenance is concerned, there shall be a primary charge on the property that belonged to the defendant and his wife Basamma and now claimed by legatee Gopal. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submits that an amount of Rs. 24,000/- is already deposited before this Court. 32. Plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to withdraw the same. The amount shall be disbursed to the plaintiffs on proper identity. The said amount of Rs. 24,000/- shall be deducted from total arrears of maintenance payable by the appellant. 33. The appellant shall deposit entire balance of the arrears within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.