Nagireddy Appayamma vs Nagireddi Bondayya

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—The order of the lower court reads as follows:

Both parties present. Orders pronounced in open court. As per the judgment in 1986 Criminal Law Journal page 282 the petition is not maintainable against 1st and 2nd respondents, who were admittedly step sons of the petitioner. For trial call on 25.4.1986.

It is against this order, this revision has been filed. The facts of the case are that petitioner Smt. Appayyamma filed M.C. No. 17 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Yellamanchili, u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. Respondents 1 and 2 are her step-sons and the third respondents is her natural son. The trial court, even before the trial, rejected the relief against the step sons basing on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Rewalal and Another Vs. Smt. Kamlabai,

It is contended by Sri K. Raghava Rao, appearing for the petitioner, that a restrictive meaning cannot be given to the word ''mother''. In the above case, which has been relied upon by the lower court, the High Court having extended the meaning of the ''mother'' to the ''adoptive mother'' also, it ought to have extended the same to the ''step mother'' also. The learned Judge observed:

In the opinion of this Court therefore, when Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure provided that a ''mother'' unable to maintain herself was entitled to claim maintenance under the said Section it meant that a ''natural'' mother i.e., the woman had given the birth to child and an ''adoptive mother'' i.e., the woman who had taken the child in adoption were alone entitled to make such a claim against the ''natural son'' and the ''adopted son'' respectively. A ''step mother'' was not entitled to make any such claim against her ''step son'' under the said Section.

In Pitei Bewa v. Larimidhai Jena 1985 Cri.LJ 1125, it has been observed that the step-mother is entitled to maintenance u/s 125(1)(d) Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been enacted with the object of enabling the discarded wives, helpless and deserted children and destitute parents to secure the much needed relief. It is a preventive measure serving a special purpose, the idea behind being that the wife, child or parent should not be left helpless which may force them to commit some crime. The section enables a Magistrate to take summary action for prevention of destitution. It provides a speedy remedy against starvation by way of summary procedure. In fact, the provision u/s 125 of the Code gives effect to the fundamental and natural duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The right to maintenance conferred by this Section is a statutory right which the Legislature has created.

The view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Havaben Karimbhai Belim Vs. Razakbhai @ Bachubhai Kartmbhai Belim and Others, , is in conflict with the view expressed by the Bombay High Court reported in Ramabhai v. Dinesh 1976 M.LJ 565. The view expressed by the Gujarat High Court was followed and the view expressed by the Bombay High Court was excluded by the Orissa High Court in the Pitei Bawa''s case (cited supra). When we are able to give an extended meaning to the ''adoptive mother'' we can also follow the same line by taking into consideration the objects of introducing Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid destitution and we can extend the same meaning to the ''step mother'' also. In the Orissa High Court Judgment, the third wife of late Nari Jena filed petition for maintenance against the sons of the second wife. Now in this cases we are at the initial stage about the claim for maintenance by the step mother. I feel it is a fit case to hold that a step-mother also can claim maintenance against the step sons and they may be arraigned as parties. The expression ''mother'' in Section 125(1)(d) Code of Criminal Procedure includes ''step mother'' also.

The revision petition is accordingly allowed.