Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sattar And Another vs Smt. Cheriya And Another on 17 May, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRR No. 1880 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1880 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 17, 2013
Sattar and another
... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Cheriya and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat and
Mr. R.S. Banka, Advocates,
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the `Code') for quashing of order dated 11.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby revision filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed and order dated 15.02.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, has been set aside. The application filed by respondent CRR No. 1880 of 2012 (O&M) 2 no.1 under Section 125 of the Code against her stepsons - petitioners has been allowed.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code stating therein that she is a poor and old widow aged about 65 years. The property of her husband was inherited by the petitioners, her real sons Suresh and Balbir (deceased). It is also admitted that husband of respondent no.1 performed two marriages i.e. one with respondent no.1 and the other with Smt. Phulli. From the wedlock of respondent no.1 with Kishna (husband of respondent no.1 and father of the petitioners and respondent No.2), a son, namely Suresh - respondent no.2 was born, whereas from the wedlock of Phulli with Kishna, two sons, namely Sattar and Balwan (petitioners herein) were born. A Will was executed in favour of his sons by the deceased husband of respondent no.1. The parties appeared and various grounds were taken before the Trial Court. In the reply, the basic ground of the petitioners was that respondent no.1 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioners since she and her real son (respondent no.2) had inherited the property of the deceased husband. The mother cannot claim maintenance from step sons when the real sons are alive. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, declined the petition of respondent no.1 filed under Section 125 of the Code vide order dated 15.02.2010. Aggrieved against the same, respondent no.1 preferred a revision petition which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide impugned order dated 11.05.2012. Hence, this criminal revision.
CRR No. 1880 of 2012 (O&M) 3
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that admitted position is that the husband of respondent no.1 and father of the petitioners, as well as, respondent no.2 has expired on 22.06.2005 and the property was inherited by his three sons on the basis of Will which is under challenge before the Competent Court and respondent no.2 has been shown to be owner of 1/9th share of the property consisting 51 kanals and 7 marlas. As such, respondent no.1 is not entitled to the maintenance from the petitioners who happen to be her step sons. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat, 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 147. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the real son and respondent no.1 have also got the share of the property from the deceased and so has been mentioned in a Civil Court decree i.e. 1/9th share each which is equal to the share of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and relied upon a judgment of this Court in Balwan Singh vs. Smt. Brahmo, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 249, to contend that the step mother is entitled to claim maintenance.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, respondent no.1 is having a real son and has also inherited the property from her deceased husband equivalent to the share CRR No. 1880 of 2012 (O&M) 4 which has been given to the petitioners. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners squarely defines that a step mother cannot claim maintenance, however, a childless step mother may claim maintenance from her step sons only when she is not in a position to maintain herself. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, has recorded a finding that when the real son of respondent no.1 is alive and her real son has been given share in the property of her deceased husband in view of Civil Court decree, respondent no.1 cannot claim any maintenance from her step sons. The matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria's case (supra) and it has been held as under:-
"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 provision contained in 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 social object CRR No. 1880 of 2012 (O&M) 5 the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfill and achieve this intention of the Legislature. Consequently, to achieve this objective, in our opinion, a childless step-mother may claim maintenance from the step-son 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 step-son to claim maintenance. Since, in this case we are not concerned with, we express no opinion, on the question of liability, if any, of the step-son to maintain the step-mother, out of the inherited family estate by the step-son 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 authority cited by learned counsel for respondent no.1 is not applicable in the present case as facts in that case were different insofar as the claimant in that case had no son of her own.
In the present case, as discussed above, the step mother CRR No. 1880 of 2012 (O&M) 6 (respondent No.1) has inter-alia a son who is major and has also inherited property from his deceased father and he is capable of maintaining his mother.
In view of this, present criminal revision is allowed. Order dated 11.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad is set aside and order dated 15.02.2010 of the learned Trial Court is restored.
May 17, 2013 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge