AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.—We think this appeal must fail; in the first place, because the person who has been appointed manager to the estate of the lunatic, Babu Isri Pershad, under the provisions of Act XXXV of 1858, has not been made a party respondent in this appeal; and in the second place, because there is no authority for the contention that a married daughter living with her husband and separate from her father is entitled to a separate maintenance being allowed to her against her lather''s estate, when that estate is taken charge of by the Court under the provisions of the said Act. Section 13 of the Act provides for the maintenance of the lunatic and of his family. The word "family" we understand to include persons living with the lunatic as members of his family, that is to say, persons actually depending upon him for their maintenance. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed, but we make no order as to costs.