Jharkhand High Court
Ganga Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 22 February, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AJR 59
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 871 of 2015
---------
Ganga Sahu, S/o Late Banwari Sahu, R/o Village- Banjar
Kisko, P.O., P.S. & District- Lohardaga. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sonwa Devi, W/o Late Banwari Sahu, R/o at Dorha Toli,
P.O., P.S. & District- Lohardaga. ... ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No. 2. : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---------
06/22.02.2017Heard Mr. Kumar Nilesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.
This application is directed against the order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, at Lohardaga in Maintenance Case No. 03 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to make payment of maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2.
The application was preferred by the opposite party no. 2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner who happens to be her stepson and on consideration of the evidence available on record the learned court below has come to a finding that the opposite party no. 2 being the stepmother of the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and had ordered accordingly.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 is not a destitute or a helpless lady unable to maintain herself as she has been maintained by her daughter. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the insistence of the daughter and son-in-law the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed in order to lay a claim to the landed property of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be stretched so far so as to include a stepmother who is being maintained by one of her -2- children. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed on misconstruction and misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. read with the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of kirtikant D. Vadodaria versus State of Gujarat and another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479.
At this Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner has made an agreement to maintain the opposite party no. 2. It has been submitted that Exhibit-1 which was brought on record was executed by the petitioner himself and he had agreed to maintain the opposite party no. 2 and to perform all the rites after her death. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that since the petitioner has already entered into an agreement the petitioner cannot go back on the terms and conditions agreed upon by taking a plea that the opposite party no. 2 being the stepmother and being maintained by the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, therefore submits that the opposite party no. 2 being a helpless lady is entitled to be get maintenance as has been directed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga.
It appears that the pertinent question which has been raised before the learned court below is with respect to the fact as to whether the opposite party no. 2 being the stepmother of the petitioner is entitled to get any maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. or not. Before considering the facts of the case it would be necessary to refer to the judgment passed in the case of kirtikant D. Vadodaria versus State of Gujarat and another (supra) wherein on consideration of the similar issue it was held as follows:-
"15. The point in controversy before us however is whether a 'stepmother' can claim maintenance from the stepson or not, having regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in -3- Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. Having regard to this special object the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the legislature. Consequently, to achieve this objective, in our opinion, a childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. The obligation of the son to maintain his father, who is unable to maintain himself, is unquestionable. When she claims maintenance from her natural born children, she does so in her status as their 'mother'. Such an interpretation would be in accord with the explanation attached to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 because to exclude altogether the personal law applicable to the parties from consideration in matters of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code may not be wholly justified. However, no intention of legislature can be read in Section 125 of the Code that even though a mother has her real and natural born son or sons and a husband capable of maintaining her, she could still proceed against her stepson to claim maintenance. Since, in this case we are not concerned with, we express no opinion, on the question of liability, if any, of -4- the stepson to maintain the stepmother, out of the inherited family estate by the stepson and leave that question to be decided in an appropriate case. Our discussion is confined to the obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only."
The principles which can be culled out from the judgment under reference is that a childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. However, on the same breath a note of caution has been put with respect to the claim made by a stepmother from a real and natural born son or sons of the husband who is capable of maintaining her and whether she could still proceed against her stepson to claim maintenance. The said query has been answered in the negative as it has been held that the legislature did not intend to grant a right to a stepmother to proceed against her stepson to claim maintenance in the event of her son or sons and the husband capable of maintaining her.
In the backdrop of the judicial pronouncement referred to above the facts of the present case are to be considered. The opposite party no. 2 has been examined as P.W.1 and she had clearly stated that earlier she was married to Banwari Sahu who was earlier married to one Kavilas Devi and on her death the marriage between Banwari Sahu and the opposite party no.2 was solemnized. The opposite party no. 2 has a daughter namely Shantoshi Devi whereas the petitioner is the son who was born out of the wedlock between Banwari Sahu and Kavilas Devi. In her evidence the opposite party no. 2 has stated that she is being maintained by her daughter and she is staying in the house which was constructed by the father of the opposite party no. 2. It appears from her evidence that the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated at the insistence of her daughter and son-in-law. Although some facts have been narrated with respect to execution of an agreement in which the petitioner had agreed to maintain the opposite party no. 2 and to perform all the rites after her death but the said agreement cannot be a sole -5- criteria for directing the petitioner to make payment of maintenance in view of the objects of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Considering the fact that the opposite party no. 2 is being maintained by her married daughter which she herself has admitted the learned court below has considered the judgment passed in the case of kirtikant D. Vadodaria versus State of Gujarat and another (supra) in a piecemeal manner without referring to the note of caution which virtually reveals the case of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no. 2. Although Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial legislation but the same cannot be stretched so far so as to include a stepmother who is maintained by her daughter and is staying in the house constructed by her father.
Such circumstances having not been properly appreciated by the learned court below while allowing the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2., the impugned order dated 05.06.2015, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, at Lohardaga in Maintenance Case No. 03 of 2013, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
This application stands allowed.
Let the Lower Court Records be sent back immediately.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-