Bombay High Court
Arastol Alias Sunandabai Madhukar ... vs Vandanabai Shivaji Patil on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31579
-1- Cri-Revn-285-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2025
Arastol @ Sunandabai W/o Madhukar Khairnar,
Age : 70 years, Occu. : Nil,
Residing at Bus Stand, Dhule. ... Revisionist
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
Vandanabai W/o. Shivaji Patil,
Age : 30 years, Occu. : Business,
Tailoring Boutique and Beauty Parlor,
Residing near Radhika Chakki,
Adjacent to Water Tank,
Besides Stadium, at Zenda Chouk,
Devpur, Dhule. ... Respondent
(Orig Respondent - Daughter)
......
Mr. Hemant S. Surve, Advocate for Applicant - Revisionist (Through V.C)
Ms. Akshara S. Madake, Advocate for Respondent (Appointed through
Legal Aid)
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18 NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Revisionist herein takes an exception to the judgment and
order of the learned Family Court, Dhule dated 15.02.2023 by which
prayers for grant of maintenance at the hands of respondent daughter are
turned down.
2. Present respondent instituted proceedings under section
-2- Cri-Revn-285-2025
125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Petition E. No. 1 of 2021
praying for maintenance at the hands of respondent i.e. her daughter.
Learned Family Court, Dhule recorded the evidence and by judgment and
order dated 15.02.2023 rejected the application of revisionist.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, present Revision Application
has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for revisionist Shri Surve would submit that
parties are mother and daughter. That, revisionist is old aged lady and a
Senior Citizen of almost 67 years of age. That, since present respondent
i.e. her daughter was two years of old, revisionist had taken care of the
daughter and fulfilled her needs including providing education,
performing marriage, etc. That, such responsibilities are shouldered on
the widow as she had lost her husband. He further submitted that, by
doing household work had performed marriage of respondent daughter
and had subsequently also extended financial help to the tune of
Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house of respondent daughter. That,
now, she being old and infirm, is unable to render work and earn, and
therefore, it is his submission that, it was duty of daughter to take care of
her mother, more particularly, she brought in above circumstances. That,
now revisionist is in need of both, mental and financial support and when
the same was sought, daughter has flatly refused. Therefore, it is
-3- Cri-Revn-285-2025
submitted that, she was constrained to institute proceedings. That, law
and legislature has provided for maintenance for senior citizens by their
wards. Respondent has utterly failed to do the same. According to him,
even learned trial court reached to a finding that mother is being
neglected and children being liable to maintain their old parents, prayers
for maintenance are turned down by erroneously holding that daughter
has no sufficient means. According to him, legal precedents are not
correctly appreciated nor factual circumstances are taken into account.
Hence, he urges for indulgence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent pointed
out that, there is no dispute about relations. There is no dispute that
present respondent was married. However, averments and submissions
about providing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house
and allegations of inflicting cruelty are refuted. Learned counsel for
respondent invited attention of this court to the observations of the
Family Court, more particularly in paragraph nos.27, 28, 29 and 30 and
would point out that respondent has merely passed 9 th standard. She is
homemaker and she does not have her own independent sufficient means
to meet the demands of revisionist. Learned counsel seeks reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya
Manohar Arbat v. Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai and Anr. [1987 AIR 1100;
-4- Cri-Revn-285-2025
1987 SCR (2) 331] and urges to dismiss the revision for want of merits.
5. The short question for consideration here is whether present
revisionist is entitled to receive maintenance and financial support from
her daughter on she being neglected and whether in spite of having
sufficient means, respondent daughter has failed to provide for the
maintenance.
6. Evidence recorded before the learned trial court is visited
and re-appreciated. Apparently and admittedly, there is no dispute that
revisionist and respondent are mother and daughter, respectively.
Revisionist mother has invoked provisions under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
and prayed for directions to her daughter to provide her maintenance as
she is old age. She has averred both, in the petition as well as in
evidence that, in the capacity of widow she has taken care of her
daughter and has spent for her upbringing and had also performed her
marriage and even given Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of house. All
such contentions are refuted by respondent saying that her mother has
merely performed her obligation. She has flatly denied maltreatment and
has also refuted that mother gave her Rs.2,00,000/- for construction of
house. Admittedly, there is no evidence in support of such contentions
raised by revisionist.
-5- Cri-Revn-285-2025
7. The learned trial court has discussed the entire evidence and
has relied on the judgment of Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat (Supra).
In the said rulings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :
"It is true that Clause (d) has used the expression "his
father or mother" but, in our opinion, the use of the
word 'his' does not exclude the parents claiming
maintenance from their daughter. Section 2(y) Cr.P.C.
provides that words and expressions used herein and not
defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code have the
meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code.
Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the
pronoun 'he' and its derivatives are used for any person
whether male or female. Thus, in view of Section 8 IPC
read with Section 2(y) Cr.P.C., the pronoun 'his' in
Clause (d) of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. also indicates a
female. Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act lays
down that in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to
include females. Therefore, the pronoun 'his' as used in
Clause (d) of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. includes both a
male and a female. In other words, the parents will be
entitled to claim maintenance against their daughter
provided, however, the other conditions as mentioned in
the section are fulfilled. Before ordering maintenance in
favour of a father or a mother against their married
daughter, the court must be satisfied that the daughter
has sufficient means of her own independently of the
-6- Cri-Revn-285-2025
means or income of her husband, and that the father or
the mother, as the case may be, is unable to maintain
himself or herself."
Here, in view of such settled legal position, predominantly
revisionist failed to demonstrate that, her daughter in spite of having
sufficient means of her own, had deliberately neglected in providing for
her maintenance and has neglected her mother. It has come on record
that, respondent is a homemaker and she is not earning anything by
rendering any type of work. She has her own children to be brought up.
When there is nothing to indicate distinct earnings or sufficient means
with daughter, no fault can be found on the part of trial court in refusing
to grant relief. No perversity or illegality is brought to the notice so as to
interfere in the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. Finding no
merits, I proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
The revision application is dismissed accordingly.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
