Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.

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.