delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff, Marshall Newman, appeals from an order modifying a divorce decree and granting permanent *206alimony to Ms former wife, Blaine Newman, defendant herein.
In February 1959, after four years of marriage and the birth of one child, the parties were divorced. Both parties were represented by counsel at all stages in the proceeding, and the ease was heard as a default matter. Plaintiff testified to acts of physical violence by defendant, and he was cross-examined by defendant’s counsel. Corroborative testimony was received. At no point in the proceeding was there raised any question with respect to defendant’s mental capacity or competence, and at the time of the entry of the divorce decree, defendant had not been declared incompetent by any court.
The decree of divorce awarded custody of the minor child to plaintiff,, and incorporated the provisions of a “property settlement agreement” which had been executed by the parties on November 3, 1958.
The “property settlement agreement” provided that plaintiff was to pay to defendant, “as and for her support and maintenance,” specified weekly sums (totaling $17,030), over a period of three years commencing December 1> 1958. The agreement further provided that the payments were to cease when fully made “or upon the date of death of the Wife or her remarriage, whichever date shall first occur.” The agreement also contained a “release” by defendant, whereby she agreed to relinquish “all claims whatsoever upon the Husband for alimony, support and maintenance, under the laws of the State of Illinois, . . . except the right to demand performance of all the undertakings of the Husband contained in this Agreement.” The divorce decree approved and adopted the terms of this agreement, and further decreed that both parties were “forever barred from asserting any rights to dower, courtesy [sic] or alimony against *207each other, except as provided in the said property settlement agreement.”
The decree was entered on February 6, 1959. On May .26,1959, defendant was adjudged an incompetent, and her brother was appointed her conservator by the Probate Court. On September 18, 1959, defendant’s next friend filed a petition asking for leave of court to appear as next friend for defendant, for the purpose of filing a petition on her behalf to vacate the decree of divorce. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the petition of the next friend was referred to a master in chancery for hearing and recommendations.
On March 1,1960, an order was entered giving leave to defendant’s next friend to appear for her and to present her petition. The petition, filed pursuant to section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, alleged, in substance, that by reason of mental incapacity, defendant was incapable of exercising sufficient judgment to consent to the entry of the divorce decree or to agree to the property settlement, and thereby “was deprived of the opportunity to defend the suit for divorce.” Defendant’s petition alleged various instances of hospitalization and psychiatric treatment extending over the period from January 1955 to February 1959, and referred to suicide attempts and insulin shock treatments administered. Finally, the petition alleged that had defendant not been mentally disabled, she would have been able to interpose a meritorious defense to the divorce action, by proving herself not guilty of the acts of cruelty charged as grounds for the divorce. Plaintiff’s answer denied a number of the factual allegations in the petition and alleged, in effect, that at all times relevant defendant had been competent.
On November 28, 1960, defendant’s next friend filed a new petition, alleging that the petition to vacate the divorce decree, which had been referred to a mas*208ter in chancery, was still pending and undetermined; that “said proceeding is fraught with many uncertainties and will involve considerable expense and certain principal witnesses required to support the said petition to vaeate the decree herein are expect to be hostile to the incompetent.” It was further stated that “a proposal of settlement has been made [by plaintiff] which, in view of all circumstances, petitioner believes to be the best in the interest of the incompetent defendant that can be obtained,” and that upon filing of a petition for instructions to the Probate Court in the matter of the estate of the incompetent defendant, the Probate Court had entered an order on October 26, 1960, “instructing the next friend petitioner herein to proceed with such acts as may be necessary and proper to effectuate the settlement aforesaid and to petition this court to amend the said decree of divorce so as to adopt and approve the aforesaid settlement.”
On November 28, 1960, the Circuit Court entered an order modifying the original decree of divorce, by incorporating therein the terms of the settlement offered by plaintiff and approved by the Probate Court on behalf of the incompetent defendant.
In its order modifying the decree, the Circuit Court expressly found that “a serious controversy existed as to the validity of said decree for divorce, which controversy would be protracted and expensive to both parties and fraught with difficulties, and that it is in the best interests of the Incompetent Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the minor child herein that the said settlement proposal be approved by this Court, and the Court finds that the said settlement is fair, equitable and just.”
The modification order decreed that plaintiff pay to the incompetent defendant “the further sum of . . . $13,250, in addition to such amounts already paid *209in performance of the original decree herein,” this sum to be payable in weekly installments of $25 for the period of 10 years and 10 weeks commencing the Monday next following entry of the modified decree. In addition, the $13,250 was made a charge against the estate of plaintiff in the event of his death prior to full satisfaction, and was further made non-defeasible by the death or remarriage of defendant.
On June 12, 1962, defendant filed a new petition, thereby commencing the instant proceeding. This petition alleged that, as she had “had her civil rights restored,” and as she was no longer institutionalized, her financial needs had greatly increased. It was further alleged that plaintiff’s income had increased since the entry of the modified decree, and that he was able to make “more adequate” provisions for defendant’s needs. The petition referred to the $25 weekly payments provided for in the modified decree as “alimony” and prayed that “the Decree of Divorce herein and its modifying order be further modified” to require that plaintiff pay defendant an increased sum per week. Defendant’s petition did not question the validity of the modifying order which incorporated the settlement accepted in her behalf by her next friend; she merely asked that these payments be increased to take account of her changed circumstances now that she was no longer an incompetent. Plaintiff answered and denied that court’s jurisdiction to modify the decree again, on the ground that the decree provided for a property settlement in lieu of alimony.
Proceeding on the pleadings and record alone, the trial court held (1) that the modification of the decree was of no effect, since “the Probate Court has no jurisdiction here,” and (2) that the original decree provided for alimony and not for a property settlement, and to that extent it was therefore modifiable. *210After hearing testimony as to the financial status of both plaintiff and defendant, the court entered an order modifying the decree by requiring plaintiff to pay defendant “as and for her permanent alimony the sum of . . . $360 per month.” From this order plaintiff appeals.
The question presented is whether the trial court was correct in granting permanent alimony to defendant subsequent to the “modification of decree for divorce” order entered on November 28,1960.
If the court which entered the first modification of the original decree had jurisdiction of the subject matter, parties, and the particular proceeding, its order is immune to collateral attack. (Baker v. Brown, 372 Ill 336, 23 NE2d 710 (1939).) As stated in Walton v. Albers, 380 Ill 423, 427, 44 NE2d 145 (1942):
“A judgment rendered by a eourt having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, unless reversed or annulled in a proper proceeding, is not open to impeachment in any collateral action, except for fraud in its procurement, and even if the judgment is voidable and so illegal or defective that it would be set aside on a proper direct application it is not subject to collateral attack so long as it stands in force.”
Also, the 1960 order should be considered in the light of the rule that “in case of a collateral attack on a judgment or decree all presumptions are in favor of the validity of the judgment or decree attacked, and want of jurisdiction to enter the same must appear on the face of the record to furnish the basis for such attack.” Steffens v. Steffens, 408 Ill 150, 153, 96 NE 2d 458 (1951).
The 1960 proceeding was commenced as an action under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, to vacate the divorce decree theretofore entered, on the *211ground that defendant was mentally disturbed at the time the decree was entered, and lacked capacity to defend her interests. The original decree having become final and conclusive 30 days after its rendition on February 6, 1959, a section 72 proceeding was the only way in which the validity of the decree could be properly questioned, and the filing of the section 72 petition commenced a new suit, vesting the Circuit Court with jurisdiction to consider the merits of the action. Williams v. Pearson, 23 Ill2d 357, 177 NE2d 856 (1961); Brockmeyer v. Duncan, 18 Ill2d 502, 165 NE2d 294 (1960).
Defendant, an incompetent at the time, appeared by her next friend, who was acting pursuant to orders granting leave so to appear which were entered by both the Circuit Court and the Probate Court of Cook County. The appearance of defendant by her next friend, although a conservator had been appointed, does not render her appearance nugatory, since section 124 of the Probate Act (Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 3, § 124) explicitly permits such appearance. Cf., Wascher v. Lundeen, 32 Ill App2d 239, 177 NE2d 440 (1961).
Although the right of a guardian, conservator, or next friend to sue for divorce of his ward may be questionable (Pyott v. Pyott, 191 Ill 280, 61 NE 88 (1901)), it is the rule in Illinois that a conservator or next friend may maintain an action on behalf of his ward to vacate and set aside a divorce decree. Bradford v. Abend, 89 Ill 78 (1878); Iago v. Iago, 168 Ill 339, 48 NE 30 (1897).
The fact that the 1960 proceeding was settled by consent of the parties does not give rise to any jurisdictional defect in the modification order. Although, as an incompetent, defendant herself was incapable of consenting to the settlement, her rights were protected by both the Circuit Court and the Probate Court. The modification order contained the fol*212lowing finding: that the settlement arrangement was “presented to the Probate Court . . . for instructions and approved by said Court with instructions [to defendant’s next friend] to proceed with action in [the Circuit Court] to effectuate said settlement.” The Probate Court has statutory authority to permit the compounding or compromise of “any claim or any interest of the ward ... in any personal estate.” (Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 3, § 215.) Our Supreme Court has stated, “the probate court has to a certain extent the powers of a court of chancery over insane persons and their property. The jurisdiction is exercised in the interest of the insane and of infants, properly designated as wards of the court.” (Sippel v. Wolff, 333 Ill 284, 291, 164 NE 678 (1928); Davis v. Mather, 309 Ill 284, 141 NE 209 (1923).) In the instant action, the Circuit Court also approved the compromise, expressly finding that the settlement was “fair, equitable and just.”
We see no reason why the policy of the law in favor of settlements should not apply to such a case as the one before us. The allegations of her petition were denied by plaintiff’s answer, thus posing factual issues. The Circuit Court’s finding was that the controversy was serious, and that it would have been protracted and expensive to both parties, and thus fraught with difficulties. We conclude that defendant’s next friend had authority, pursuant to the Probate Court’s order, to. settle the section 72 proceeding.
Finally, defendant objects to the manner of settlement, contending that neither the Probate Court nor her next friend had authority to settle by accepting a property settlement in lieu of alimony. This argument is based on the contention that the original decree provided for the payment of alimony, that the right to alimony is a “personal right,” and that a *213“personal right” of an incompetent cannot he exercised by a conservator.
We agree that certain powers, rights, or elections may be so personal that they cannot be exercised on behalf of an incompetent. In snch cases, courts have held that a conservator cannot be authorized to use his discretion to change an act performed by the incompetent prior to his disability. (Chase Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. Ginnel, 50 NYS2d 345 (1944); 3 James, Illinois Probate Law & Practice, § 122.9 (1951, Pocket Part 1962).) Examples of such non-exercisable powers are the right to change a beneficiary on an insurance policy issued to the ward while he was competent (Kay v. Erickson, 209 Wis 147, 244 NW 625 (1932)), or the right to revoke or modify the ward’s will, except to the extent necessary to provide for the ward’s necessities (Lewis v. Hill, 317 Ill App 531, 47 NE2d 127 (1943), affd 387 Ill 542, 56 NE2d 619 (1944)), or the right to maintain a suit for divorce of the ward (Pyott v. Pyott, 191 Ill 280, 61 NE 88 (1901)).
However, when the exercise of a particular power, right, or election — though “personal” in some sense — can be shown to be beneficial to the maintenance and welfare of the ward, courts have, in proper cases, permitted such rights to be exercised on behalf of the ward. (McCartney v. Jacobs, 288 Ill 568, 123 NE 557 (1919).) In Kinnett v. Hood, 25 Ill2d 600, 185 NE2d 888 (1962), our Supreme Court said (p 602):
“Oúr probate courts have jurisdiction under their equitable powers to determine whether an incompetent shall take under his or his spouse’s will or renounce the provisions of the will. . . . Courts are in agreement that the primary consideration is the best interest of the incompetent.”
We believe that the right to alimony cannot be considered a “personal” right in the sense *214used; a choice between alimony or a property settlement in lieu of alimony involves no element of personal discretion on the part of an incompetent, and can as well be exercised by the court having jurisdiction over the incompetent’s estate. We therefore conclude that the defendant’s next friend was acting within his authority in entering into the settlement agreement, pursuant to the order of the Probate Court. We find there is no jurisdictional defect in the November 28, 1960, order. In subsequent proceedings it is binding on the parties and on the trial court.
In substance, the “modification of decree” order of November 28, 1960, sets forth and again approves a property settlement in lieu of alimony, and defendant does not contend otherwise. The decree, as modified, provides for the payment of a sum certain, in weekly installments, over a period of 10 years and 10 weeks, and is nondefeasible by the death of either party or by the remarriage of defendant. We conclude the decree, as modified, bars defendant from asserting any right to alimony. In view of this conclusion, the trial court was in error in granting defendant permanent alimony. Ill Rev Stats 1959, e 40, § 19; Kohler v. Kohler, 31 Ill App2d 151, 175 NE2d 603 (1961).
For the reasons stated, that part of the order appealed from, which awards permanent alimony, is reversed.
Reversed.
BURMAN, PJ, concurs.