A widowed daughter-in-law is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when claiming against her in-laws.

JUDGMENT

1. Present application has been filed invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order of issuance of notice dated 10.11.2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad and also for quashing and setting aside the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.586 of 2021 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the said Court.

2. Applicant No.1 is the mother of applicant No.2, applicant No.3 is the husband of applicant No.2 and son-in-law of applicant No.1. The respondent No.2 has filed application for getting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present applicants.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Rajebhosale for applicants, learned APP Mr. S. P. Sonpawale for respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Ms. Mayuri G. Kasturkar for respondent No.2.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that the respondent No.2 contends that she got married to Rahul Ashok Pande, who was the son of present applicant No.1 and brother of applicant No.2, on 10.02.2016. Said Rahul Ashok Pande expired on 06.06.2020. The application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the present respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 28.11.2021 i.e. after the death of said Rahul Ashok Pande. It is the case of the applicants that Rahul was married to one Yugandhara @ Vaishali on 12.07.2008. Said Yugandhara @ Vaishali had filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.01 of 2016 before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it came to be decreed on 06.09.2017. The copy of the judgment in said Hindu Marriage Petition No.01 of 2016 has been produced on record. Therefore, when in the year 2008 itself Rahul was married to another lady and that marriage was subsisting till 06.09.2017, he could not have married legally with present respondent No.2 on 10.02.2016. Even if for the sake of arguments we accept that there is any such kind of right in respondent No.2, yet she cannot get that maintenance from the applicants as the applicant No.1 is an old lady having no source of income of her own. Maintenance cannot be sought from a married sister-in-law and her husband. The learned Magistrate has absolutely not considered as to whether there is any right in the respondent No.2 - original applicant to seek maintenance from the respondents before him. He, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the proceedings.

5. The learned Advocate Ms. Mayuri Kasturkar appearing for respondent No.2 relied on the affidavit-in-reply by respondent No.2, which is nothing but the reiteration of her contents in the application and then she is relying on the marriage invitation card of the marriage between her and deceased Rahul. It is stated that the present applicant No.1 has sold land to applicant No.3 by a sale deed dated 04.11.2016 and in order to show the said fact Mutation Entry No.1105 has been produced. The other documents are also produced stating that there is land in the name of applicant No.2. She has also produced documents on record to show that she is suffering from illness and it is stated that she require medical assistance. She has also placed on record one document styled as Kararnama, which is alleged to have been executed by respondent No.2 in favour of applicant No.1 on 19.06.2020, however, it is stated that nobody has signed that document. She is also relying on the decision by this Court in Ravindra Pralhad Pandeji and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., [Criminal Application No.213 of 2021 dated 20.08.2021], whereby the said application under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was refused to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

6. It was submitted that since respondent No.2 is unable to maintain herself, and the property of he