History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.478.2

v4.c63.t2.478.2

In the second place the concubine¹⁵⁸⁹ must observe sexual fidelity to her deceased paramour after his death in order to be able to claim maintenance from the estate in the hands of his heirs or successors. In *Bai Monghibai v. Bai Nagubai*¹⁵⁹⁰ a third condition was laid down viz. that the connection of the concubine with the deceased paramour should be perfectly open and recognized and she must have been kept practically as a member of the family. But in *Bai Nagubai v. Bai Monghibai*¹⁵⁹¹ the Privy Council overruled the above decision and held that in order to entitle a mistress to maintenance it is not necessary that she should have resided in the same house with the deceased together with his wife and the ordinary members of his family. And in *Dayavati v. Kesarbai*¹⁵⁹² it was further held that the concubine need not prove that she was recognized by the family of the deceased or that his relationship with her was known to the family. A further restriction was imposed by the case of *Anandilal v. Chandrabai*¹⁵⁹³ that the intercourse with the paramour should not have been adulterous. But this case has been overruled by a recent Full Bench decision in *Akku v. Ganesh*¹⁵⁹⁴ which holds that a permanently kept concubine is entitled to be maintained out of the estate of her deceased paramour, although she has a husband living (who was examined in the case as a witness), provided she observes sexual fidelity to the deceased paramour after his death.