Bombay High Court
Shridhar Babanrao Wagh vs Jebubai Babanrao Wagh And Anr on 18 March, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
693.06crwp
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2006
Shridhar s/o Babanrao Wagh,
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agri./Labour,
R/o. Pokharni, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ...Petitioner
versus
1. Jebubai w/o Babanrao Wagh,
Age: 71 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Pokharni,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
2. The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondents
.....
Mr. Vinayak Solunke, Advocate h/f Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate for
petitioner
Mr. A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 1
Mr. D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2
.....
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 18th MARCH, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The order dated 25/09/2001 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani in Misc. Criminal Application No. 71
of 2001 and the order dated 25/08/2005 passed by learned 2nd Adhoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Revision No. 134 of
2004 confirming the order of Magistrate referred supra, are
questioned in the present petition.
693.06crwp
2. Few facts, as are necessary, for deciding the present writ
petition, are as under :-
The petitioner, claims to be step son of the respondent
and the respondent-step mother of present petitioner. Invoking
provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing
Criminal Misc. Application No. 122 of 1993 was allowed by learned
Magistrate in favour of respondent, ordering the petitioner to pay
maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month to the respondent.
2. The respondent then filed Criminal Misc. Application No.
71 of 2001 seeking invoking of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for enhancement/arrears of order of maintenance passed
on 23/11/1993. On 25/09/2001 learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Parbhani allowed Criminal Misc. Application No. 71 of 2001
ordering payment of maintenance of Rs.1500-/ per month to the
respondent from the date of application. The revision, questioning
the said order, before learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani suffered
dismissal.
3. The above referred order of confirming the enhancement
of maintenance of Rs.1500/-, is questioned in the present petition.
693.06crwp
4. In the above referred background, learned Counsel for
the petitioner-step son would submit that the land owned by the
petitioner is dry crop land and as such, he has hardly any income out
of the said land to satisfy the enhanced maintenance order. He
would then submit that the step mother is not entitled for
maintenance from the petitioner, as in law, there is no obligation on
the part of the petitioner to maintain step mother. So as to
substantiate the contention, he has relied upon the judgment of
Andhra Pradesh High Court Ayyagari Suryanarayana Vara Prasad
Rao vs. Ayyagari Venkatakrishna Veni & anr. reported in 1989 Cr.
L.J. 673 so as to espouse his cause that step mother is not entitled
for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent wife
would submit that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter
of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1996 (4)
SCC 479 qualifies obligation of the step son to maintain his step
mother. He would then submit that the enhancement as was granted
is just and proper, particularly having regard to her age which is 84
years and expenses incurred by her for her maintenance.
6. Having bestowed my thoughts to the submissions made,
693.06crwp
it is required to be noted that, the original order of grant of
maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure
passed by the learned Magistrate on application bearing Criminal
Misc. Application No. 122 of 1993 on 23/11/1993 granting
maintenance of Rs. 250/- p. m. was not questioned by the petitioner
on the ground that he is not liable to give maintenance to his step
mother. The petitioner, rather has suffered the said order and has
paid maintenance to the respondent.
ig It is only after the Court
ordered enhancement under Section 127 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, the present petitioner-step son has tried to raise an issue
about his legal obligation to maintain his step mother.
7. So far as the legal obligation of the petitioner to maintain
his step mother is concerned, the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the matter of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria (supra) is worth referring to.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that step son is duty bound
to maintain his mother, in case, if the husband of such mother is non-
surviving, she has no independent source of income, there is no real
son to maintain her. In my opinion, the observations of the Apex
Court in para No. 15 of the said judgment is worth referring to, which
reads thus :
15) The point in controversy before us however is whether a
'stepmother' can claim maintenance from the step-son or
693.06crwp
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 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 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
693.06crwp
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 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.
8. Here the case in hand is, where the respondent
mother is aged about 84 years as on date, there is hardly any
material on record to depict that she is capable of maintaining her.
There is no natural born issue to her and as such, in my opinion, in
view of provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,
particularly Section 20 entails her to claim maintenance from the
petitioner based on above observations.
9. As such, there is no substance in the writ petition,
petition fails, same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]
Tupe/18.03.16
