Gujarat High Court
Manish Harishbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 18 February, 2015
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
R/CR.RA/625/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 625 of
2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
MANISH HARISHBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR UTPAL M PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MITA S PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 18/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
The petitioner is original respondent before the Family Court, Surat in maintenance application being Criminal Misc.Application no.207 of 2013. Such application was filed by respondent no.2 u/s.125 of Code of Page 1 of 5 R/CR.RA/625/2014 JUDGMENT Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.', for short), claiming maintenance of Rs.10000/- from the present petitioner, who is her stepson. However, no such fact is disclosed in the application that she is stepmother of respondent no.2. What is stated in the application is only to the effect that respondent no.2 has filed one Regular Civil Suit no.179 of 2012 before the Civil Court at Surat and he is not taking care of his mother and, therefore, she has to die of starvation. As usual, there are also allegations regarding physical and mental cruelty. However, it cannot be ignored that respondent no.2 herein is stepmother and not wife of the present petitioner. It is also disclosed in the application itself that respondent is pressing to transfer some residential property in his name and for that he is behaving in cruel manner.
2. Original respondent has resisted the application on all counts, including the fact that respondent no.2 - mother has failed to disclose true facts before the trial Court and thereby suppressed the material information. It is also contended that being stepson, he is not absolutely liable to maintain her, more particularly, when her real son is alive and she is residing with her real son. Therefore, it is submitted that, in fact, when stepmother and her real son are trying to dispose of the ancestral properties and when present petitioner has to initiate legal proceedings in the form of Civil Suit as referred herein above to safeguard his interest, in counter-blast of such civil litigation, though respondent no.2 is residing with her real son, she has filed such application for maintenance u/s.125 of the Cr.P.C. and even did not join her real son or did not claim any maintenance from her real son.
3. Unfortunately, by impugned judgment dated 30.8.2014, the Family Court, Surat has allowed such application for maintenance by stepmother and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2000/- p.m. to her as maintenance. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that respondent no.2 is stepmother of the petitioner and that she Page 2 of 5 R/CR.RA/625/2014 JUDGMENT is living with her real son, who is also earning and that she is also having possession of ancestral properties for which the present petitioner has to file a civil suit. Then, the only issue remains is with reference to the entitlement of the stepmother to claim maintenance u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. It is true that there is no definition or distinguishing disclosure in law with reference to father and mother. The law provides for their maintenance by way of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. However, such issues were dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in much details, while deciding the case between Kirtikant D.Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (1996)4 SCC 479. Since this judgment has never be overruled thereafter, though certain observations have been referred in the case of Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel reported in AIR 2008 SC 2675, the sum and substance of the decision in Kirtikant D.Vadodaria (supra) is quite clear, when Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held in paragraph 14 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 Belim case that the word 'mother' occurring in clause (d) of Section 125(1) includes a woman who has the status of a 'stepmother' 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 Petei Bewa's 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 step- mother, who in common parlance is a distinct and separate entity and cannot be equated with one's own mother. The High Court of Allahabad in case of Ganga Saran Varshney (supra) was mainly concerned with the question of jurisdiction with reference to the place where Page 3 of 5 R/CR.RA/625/2014 JUDGMENT maintenance petition could be filed and there is no elaborate discussion on the question whether a step-mother would include in 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) in not the correct view."
4. However, considering the specific object of the provision of maintenance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in paragraph 15 in Kirtikant D.Vadodaria's case as under:-
"15) The point in controversy before us however is whether a 'stepmother' 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 andvagrancy 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 the provisions ofSection 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 out opinion, a childless step- mother may claim maintenance from her step-son provided she is 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 Page 4 of 5 R/CR.RA/625/2014 JUDGMENT 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 opining, 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."
5. In the present case, as discussed above, the stepmother - respondent no.2 has got natural born son, who is major and well to do, and capable of maintaining his mother. Moreover, when respondent no.2 is also possessing sufficient property that she derived from her husband, yet, she prefers to claims the maintenance only from the stepson, the petitioner herein, leaving out her natural born son from whom she could claim maintenance as his mother, prima facie, it appears that respondent no.2 proceeded against her stepson with a view to punish and cause harassment to him, which is wholly unjustified.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that respondent no.2 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the stepson, petitioner herein. In the result the present Criminal Revision Application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the Family Court in Criminal Misc.Application no.207 of 2013 is set aside. I, however, wish to clarify that in the interest of justice and to balance the equities, the amount already received by respondent no.2 from the petitioner shall not be refundable by her to the petitioner.
7. Rule is made absolute.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 5 of 5