2008 Supreme(P&H) 801
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Balwan Singh
Versus
Brahmo
Decided On : MARCH 31, 2008
Maintenance--Step-son inheriting property of step-mothers husband--Liable to provide maintenance to her.
Headnote:Maintenance--Step-son inheriting property of step-mothers husband--Maintenance application filed by step mother--She has no source of income--Liability of step son under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act cannot be disputed--Order granting maintenance justified--|Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125. (Paras 6 & 10)
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to challenge the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak confirming that of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak dated 8.3.2004.
2. The respondent Brahmo, step mother of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance from the petitioner.
3. The case set up by the respondent-step mother was that she was married to Mange Ram father of the petitioner, who died on 17.6.1996 and out of the said wedlock, one daughter namely Meena Devi was bom. Meena Devi is married and is living at her matrimonial home. The agricultural land belonging to Mange Ram has been inherited by the petitioner on the basis of a Will, which was alleged to be forged and a civil suit qua the same is pending.
4. It was further the case of the respondent that petitioner is drawing salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month whereas the step mother has no source of income.
5. On an application moved for grant of ad-interim maintenance by the step mother, the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance and the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order also failed.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no maintenance could be fixed for payment to the respondent being step mother and in support of this contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat 1996(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 147 (S.C.), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:
14. In view of the above discussion it follows that the expression mother, in Clause (d) of Section 125(1) of the Code, means and is referable only to the real or natural mother, who has actually given birth to the child and if that be so, the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Havaben Belines case (supra) that the word mother occurring in Clause (d) of Section 125(1) includes a woman who has the status of a step-mother by reason of her lawful marriage with the father of the person sought to be made liable for maintenance under Section 125 cannot be accepted. This assumption of the meaning of the expression mother by legal fiction would mean some thing which is not so intended by the legislature. For the same reasons the view taken by the Orissa High Court in Patel Bewas case (supra), cannot also be accepted as it adopts the reasoning of the Gujarat High Court in preference to Bombay High Court which took the view that the word mother used in Section 125(1)(d) of the Code, will have to be given its natural meaning and so construed it will mean only the natural mother and will not include the stepmother, who is common parlance is a distinct and separate entity and cannot be equated with ones own mother. The High Court of Allahabad in case of Ganga Sharan Varshney (supra) was mainly concerned with the question of jurisdiction with reference to the place where maintenance petition could be filed and there is not elaborate discussion on the question whether a step-mother would include in the expression "mother" in Section 125(1)(d) of the Code or not. In our considered opinion the view expressed by the High Courts of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, with regard to the meaning of the expression mother in Section 125(1)(d) of the Code is the correct view and the contrary view of the Gujarat High Court, Orissa High Court and the Allahabad High Court (supra) is not the correct view.
15. The point in controversy before us however is whether a step-mother can claim maintenance from the step-son or not, having regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the