The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between stepmother and mother under the law, the need for evidence regarding the husband's properties and income, and the applicability of the Special Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 in granting maintenance to a stepmother.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The Crl.P.No.8508/2022 is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.506/2019 passed by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on the application filed by the respondent under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C for quashing the entire criminal proceedings.

2. The W.P.No.14494/2022 filed by the same petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 19/4/2022 passed by the VI Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.506/2019 for having granted maintenance of Rs.25, 000.00 per month to the respondent which is under challenge.

3. Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.

4. For convenience, rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained.

5. The case of petitioner before the trial court is that she had married the father of the respondents before the trial court by name Moheddin Muniri on 26/8/1989 in Bhatkal on the decision of both the families after the death of the wife of Moheddin Muniri, even though he had the children who are the petitioners before this Court. She further contended that, at the time of marriage, the father of the present petitioners had assured her that he is having landed properties apart from movable properties and that he will look after the respondent and she was living in the joint family of her husband. Her husband died on 30/8/1994 and his successors were the present petitioners, who are the children of Moheddin Muniri. The respondent herein is a senior citizen, uneducated and unemployed house wife, she has no source of income, except Rs.4000.00 earning from a rent house at Bhatkal there is no other source of income or help to meet her necessities. She is having a daughter who is also a divorcee having a grand daughter who is of 3 years old. The respondent herein is paying monthly rent of Rs.12000.00 at R.T. Nagar, Bengalur and she is having aged related problems and health issues. Therefore, she has prayed through an application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C for granting maintenance by filing the interlocutory application which came to be allowed by the impugned order. The family court had granted maintenance of Rs.25, 000.00 to the petitioner (respondent herein) at the trial court, which is under challenge in both the petitions.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order under challenge is not sustainable under the law. The Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C is not application to the respondent as she was a step mother of these petitioners which is not covered under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C for granting maintenance under the Special Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and as per the Sec. 9(2) of the maintenance payable is maximum of Rs.10, 000.00, therefore in order to avoid less payment the respondent has filed this petition by suppressing the main facts and also contended that the said Act came into force in the year 2007, therefore she has to approach the Deputy Commissioner for the relief.

7. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kirikand D.Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and Anr" in the case of dtd. 26/4/1996 and also in case of Dalip Singh Vs State of U.P and Ors., dated 03.12.20199 and also in Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 398 and hence prayed for allowing the petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioners are having landed properties, business and having huge income, therefore, they have to pay the maintenance of Rs.25, 000.00 per month as per ordered by the Family Court. Hence, prayed for dismissing this petition.

9. Having heard the arguments for both parties and perusal of the records, on perusal of the same, it is not in dispute the petitioner before the trial court/family court had married the father of the respondents and at the t