Karnataka High Court
Ulleppa And Ors. vs Smt. Gangabai on 20 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ2566, II(2003)DMC488, ILR2003KAR1946, 2003(5)KARLJ227
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
ORDER Gururajan, J.
1. Petitioners are challenging an order passed by the Family Court at Gulbarga in Criminal Misc. No. 92/2001 dated 11.11.2002.
2. One Gangabai wife of late Siddanna Kamballi, claiming to be the mother of the petitioners filed an application seeking for maintenance from the petitioners under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. matter was contested. According to the petitioners, respondent is not their mother and that therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. They have also denied other averments. Learned Trial Judge by a detailed order has granted a sum of Rs. 400/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent herein. This order is challenged in this case. Notice was issued. Respondents have entered appearance.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues before me that respondent is not a mother and she is only a step-mother. Therefore she is not eligible for any maintenance in terms of the laws governing maintenance. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argues at great length to convince the Court that step-mother is equally entitled for maintenance. She further says that the object of the Act is to help the destitute women and the law can be extended providing maintenance to the respondents.
4. In the light of the submission of the learned Counsel, the question that requires to be considered by this Court is as to whether the respondent being a step mother is entitled for maintenance? Section 125 provides for maintenance. The said section reads as under;
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.
A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means."
5. The Supreme Court in , has noticed Section 125 in the matter of maintenance to a step-mother. After referring to this section, the Supreme Court in para 11 has ruled as under;
"Thus, on a conspectus view of dictionary meaning of the two expressions 'mother' and 'stepmother' and they are two distinct and separate entities and both could not be assigned the same meaning. The expression 'mother' clearly means only the natural mother who has given birth to the child and not the one who is the wife of one's father by another marriage."
The Supreme Court in that very judgment noticed the object of Section 125 in para 15 and ruled 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 objection 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 these who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a morale 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 of Section 125 of the Code have to be given 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 her step-son provided she is a widow of 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 interpretations 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."
Ultimately the Supreme Court noticed that the step-mother had natural born sons and that they are capable of maintaining their mother. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court refused to grant maintenance to her.
6. From this judgment what is clear to me is that Section 125 is to be given a liberal construction to fufil and achieve the intention of the legislature in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
7. After noticing this judgment let me see the other case laws cited by the parties.
8. In , the Supreme Court has considered as to whether an illegitimate minor child is entitled to maintenance.
9. In 1989 Crl.L.J. 673, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court after noticing the Supreme Court judgment has ruled as under;
"In the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 20(1) provides maintenance of children and aged parents. The explanation to this Section reads thus;
"In this Section "Parent" includes a childless step-mother. But this may not be of any help in interpreting the meaning of the word "mother". According to Hindu Law the "mother" is one who has given birth to the child. No doubt a step-mother can be a dependent, but she cannot as a matter of right, claim maintenance under Section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise in the instant case the respondent-step-mother is not childless and she is having her own children. Therefore the Explanation to Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is of no help so far the respondent is concerned."
A learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1986 Cri.L.J. 282 has ruled that a step-mother cannot claim maintenance from her step-son. The Patna High Court in 1996(4) Crimes 281 has noticed various case laws and ultimately ruled that a step-mother is entitled to maintain a petition against her step-son.
10. In the light of the above referred judgments, as I mentioned earlier, a step-mother in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court can maintain a petition in the light of the larger object of Section 125 but she has to prove her helplessness in the matter. The Supreme Court in has noticed that liberal construction has to be given to achieve the intention of the legislature and ruled that a childless step-mother can claim maintenance from her step-sons provided she is a widow of her husband, and if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her.
In the case on hand, material facts reveal that the step-mother namely the widow had two sons who are no more. Her daughter who is married, is living separately with her husband. This Court can take notice that in many cases, after marriage, the daughters join their husband's family and that they may not be able to maintain their mother. Therefore from the facts of this case it is clear to me that the respondent (petitioner) is a widow and her daughter is not in a position to support and maintain her. In these circumstances, this Court can extend the logic and the reasonings of the Supreme Court by way of ordering maintenance to the respondents as though she is a helpless step-mother. To grant maintenance to such helpless step-mothers would be a motherly act and would be in consonance with the social object of providing maintenance to the destitute widow of Hindu Community. At the same time, I must add a rider that if it is proved that she has other modes of maintaining herself she may not able to get maintenance from her step-sons. The crucial question is as to whether she can maintain herself without support in the given set of facts. If the answer is 'yes' then she can claim maintenance from her step-sons. In the case on hand, the evidence on record would show that she is living alone and on account of her old age she is unable to maintain herself. It is not the case of the petitioners that her daughter can maintain her. If that were to be the reason she would not have filed the application. Taking into consideration the object of Section 125, the realities of helpless widow with a married daughter living separately, this Court has to lend its hands in the larger interest of attaining the object of Section 125. Evidence on record also would show that petitioners are fairly well settled and can afford to pay a sum of Rs. 4007- p.m. to this helpless widow. In these hard days it cannot be said that Rs. 400/- is so excessive warranting any interference by this Court. At the cost of repetition, grant of Rs. 400/- by the Court through the hands of stepsons would be a motherly act and denial would be a non-motherly Act. Law has to develop and it is for this reason the Supreme Court has ruled that a childless step-mother may claim maintenance from her step son provided she is a widow of her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. The said law can be extended to the present case in the given set of facts.
Petition stands rejected. Parties are to bear their respective costs.