The court affirmed that a compassionate appointment does not exempt an individual from the legal obligation to maintain dependents, including step-relatives.

Order on Board

04.07.2025

1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the Non-applicants.

2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:

“It is therefore prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the order impugned passed by the learned Family Court in M. Cri. Case No. 75/17 may be set-aside, in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 is the second wife of late Surendra Kumar Khakha. From his first marriage (now deceased), Surendra Kumar had two children – the present applicant and Jitendra, aged about 22 years. After the death of his first wife in the year 2002, Surendra Kumar married with non- applicant No.1 according to social customs, and thereafter, non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born from this marriage. On 12/12/2010, while serving as a Lineman in the Electricity Department, Jashpur, Surendra Kumar died. For the proper maintenance of the family and all the children, as per the mutual agreement between the parties, the applicant was allowed to obtain a compassionate appointment on the condition that he would pay Rs. 5,000/- per month from his salary to the non-applicants for their maintenance. However, despite drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000– 35,000 per month, he has not been providing the said amount. Instead, he creates disputes and even threatens to kill them. As a result, applications were submitted before the Collector, Jashpur, and even after arriving at a compromise, he failed to pay the maintenance to the non-applicants. He also refused to support his younger unemployed brother and lived separately from the entire family with his wife. Therefore, it has been requested that a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month be awarded to all three non-applicants.

4. The present applicant, while admitting the facts stated in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment has denied the remaining allegations and stated that the non-applicants are his step-mother and step- siblings, and hence, they are not entitled to claim maintenance under the law. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed due to lack of legal eligibility. It was also submitted that after the death of the father, some amount was equally distributed between the applicant and his brother, and all departmental dues including DA were arranged in the name of non-applicant No.1, so that she could maintain the applicant’s grandmother and other family members and also arrange their marriages. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 06/03/2017 has already been set aside as being contrary to law, beyond jurisdiction and null & void. The non-applicant No.1 has evicted the applicant from the ancestral house, and since then, he has been living in a rented house and is drawing a salary of only Rs. 14,500/-. According to the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C ., stepmother and step-siblings are not entitled to claim maintenance.

5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated18.01.2018, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/(step mother) for the entire life or till she gets remarried and Rs. 3000/- per month each to the non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (step siblings, till they became adult) as amount of maintenance (total 7000/-) from the date of passing of the order. Hence this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of the learned Family Court is bad in the eye of law, further a