Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.K. Saikia, J.
Smt. Kanan Bala Chaudhury —Petitioner
versus
Smt Kabita Das And Anr. —Respondents
Cri. Rev. P. No. 101 of 2009
Decided on 28.3.2012
Held: On perusal of provisions Section 125 CrPC, in between the lines, I have found that the legislature intended that certain words employed therein, such as, the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are to convey their common or generic meaning only and therefore, they need to be read and understood in that sense only. Such an interpretation is also found to be in tune with aim and objective of the legislation for which such an enactment was brought into existence.
Any other interpretation of the term ‘mother’ and ‘father’ or an interpretation in the line as desired by the petitioner herein would not only defeat the very purpose of the enactment aforesaid but it would also cause havoc to the society by destroying the very fabric on which society survives. Thus, in my considered view, the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’—as has been used in Section 125 CrPC—carry a meaning and connotation in which they are usually and normally understood. (Paras 15 & 16)
Words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ mean natural father and mother only and as such those words cannot be stretched to include mother-in-law or father-in-law as well and the petitioner herein as being mother-in-law of the respondent No. 1, therefore, cannot claim a benefit, so made available under a provision of Section 125 CrPC, she not being natural mother of the respondent in proceedings aforesaid. Being so, I have found no infirmity whatsoever in the order impugned dismissing the petition filed by petitioner herein under Section 125 CrPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 had got the job under die-in-harness scheme on the death of her husband, who is the son of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that before being appointed under the aforesaid scheme, she undertook to maintain her mother-in-law as well as her daughter-in-law. However, she did not honour the aforesaid undertaking. This itself is a ground enabling the petitioner to claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law.
We have already decidedly found that the petitioner cannot claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law on invoking the provisions recorded in 125 CrPC and as such, her petition is not maintainable. This needs no further deliberation here. However, if she has any claim under the scheme aforesaid, under which she got the job, the petitioner can agitate same, if so advised, in appropriate forum. (Paras 27 to 29)
JUDGMENT
P.K. Saikia, J.— In this proceeding, the order dated 25.8.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009 has been challenged. By the aforesaid order, the learned Judge, Family Court held that maintenance sought for by the petitioner herein Under Section 125 CrPC in her capacity as the mother-in-law of the opposite party therein is not maintainable.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition contending that order dated 25.8.2009 in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009 is illegal and without any basis and it causes her enormous injustice.
3. The facts, leading to the Misc. Case aforesaid, in short, are that the respondent No. 1 herein, is the wife of one Sunil Chandra Choudhury, a Government employee, working in the Power Department, Government of Tripura. However, said Sunil Chandra Choudhury died on 20.7.2005 while he was in service. Owing to death of said Sunil Chandra Choudhury, his wife, Smt. Kabita Choudhury got a job in the Department of her deceased husband under die in harness scheme.
4. Said Sunil Chandra Choudhury left behind his wife, one son and daughter, his widow mother and two unmarried sisters as his heirs. However, after getting the job, the respondent No. 1 herein started living separately and did not pay anything either to her poor widow mother-in-law or her unmarried sisters-in-law, which put them in between the deep sea and devil. Having found no other way, the petitioner approached learned Judge, Family Court with an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance allowance from her daughter-in-law, as, she, in spite of having sufficient means, did not maintain her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, who were unable to maintain themselves.
5. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner, Smt. Kanan Bala Choudhury, is not maintainable since under the scheme as arranged in Section under Section 125 CrPC, mother-in-law cannot claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law despite latter getting a job under die-in-harness scheme on the death of her husband and accordingly, vide order dated 25.8.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009, the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the said petition being not maintainable one.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dated 25.8.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009, the petitioner has now come up with the present petition, alleging that learned Trial Court by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009 has not only defied the dictum of law, so incorporated in Section 125 CrPC but also caused profound injustice to the petitioner, a poor, hapless and wretched woman for whose benefit and assistance, the legislature enacted such a beneficial legislation—argues Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel, appearing for the revision-petitioner.
7. It has further been contended that learned Trial Court committed grave error of law by not appreciating the fact that the term ‘Mother’ as used in Section 125 CrPC very well covers a mother-in-law as well and, as such, it is well within her right to claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law on invoking aforesaid provision of law. However, by refusing to grant her such maintenance, the learned Judge perpetuated huge injustice on the petitioner herein.
8. Injustice done to her due to such refusal becomes more explicit, more clear for the reason that the respondent No. 1 herein (the opposite party in misc. case No. 227 of 2009 under Section 125 CrPC) got the job under die in harness scheme only on the death of her husband, who being her son, maintained his mother and unmarried sisters while he was alive. Being so, on her getting a job under die-in-harness scheme, the respondent No. 1 herein is duty bound to maintain not only the petitioner but her unmarried daughters as well.
9. The opposite party entered appea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
