The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of a mother to seek maintenance from her son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not extinguished by factors such as nurturing the son or contracting a second marriage.

JUDGMENT :

1. By means of instant criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed judgment and order dated 8.7.2022, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Room No.2, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No.939 of 2017 (Smt. Manorama vs. Ajay Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the original applicant has been awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/-, per month from the date of filing of application to the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of Rs.2000/-per month onwards. The maintenance is payable by opposite party, who is revisionist before this Court. It is also directed in impugned order that any amount obtained by the applicant towards maintenance shall be liable to be adjusted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record including impugned judgment and order.

3. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, are that the applicant Manorama, who is opposite party No.2 in present revision instituted a case under Section 125 (2) (d) Cr.P.C., in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, which is registered as application No.939 of 2017. The applicant stated therein that she is widow of late Sunderlal @ Raja Babu, who died on 8.4.1993. He was serving in Ordnance Parachute Factory. He died during tenure of his service and the opposite party, who is son of the applicant born out of her wedlock with her late husband Sunderlal, obtained a job on death of his father under Dying in Harness Rules. He is also serving in Parachute Factory, Kanpur Nagar. The opposite party after getting the job under dying in harness rules parted his ways from the applicant and began to reside separately from her. He never took care of the applicant whereas in the affidavit filed by him at the time of joining, he had undertaken to taken care of his mother and family. The applicant is blessed with four sons apart from the opposite party Ajay Kumar, who are named as Anil Kumar, Pintu, Monu (differently abled) and Vikky. The applicant is an elderly and infirm lady. The opposite party is shirking from his liability to maintain his mother. The name of the applicant was entered in service record of her late husband in Ordnance Parachute Factory. She is presently residing in a mud house with thatched shed. She is unable to maintain herself. The opposite party is possessed of sufficient means to maintain his elderly mother. Therefore, he may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of his mother-the applicant.

4. Learned court below issued summon to opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement before the court below, in which he stated that Smt. Manorama contracted second marriage in the Court on 3.8.1981 with Munnu, son of Satallu, when she was pregnant with five months. She was not wife of Sunderlal and she is not having any share in movable and immovable property of deceased Sunderlal. Late Sunderlal, the father of opposite party, even lodged a case under Section 498 IPC against the applicant, in which he stated that she was abducted by Munnu and Ram Chander. Sunderlal solemnized marriage with one Geeta Devi. A memorandum was issued from Parachute Factory on 25.4.1997 in the name of Smt. Geeta Devi, in which she was referred as wife of late Sunderlal and at present, it is established that Geeta Devi is widow of late Sunderlal. The applicant Smt. Manorama is residing at Lucknow with her husband Munnu. The name of Smt. Manorama was deleted in the service record of late Sunderlal and in her place the name of Smt. Geeta Devi is presently entered. The opposite party is not liable to maintain Smt. Manorama.

5. Learned court below after perusing the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by the both sides, gave a finding that the applicant has stated in her evidence that she is mother of opposite party and wife of late Sunderlal @ Raja Babu. D.W.-1 Ajay Kumar has stated that Smt.