Panchaliammal vs Kanniappan

Bellie, J.—This Criminal Revision Case is directed against an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chingleput, dismissing a petition filed u/s 125, Cr.P.C.

The Petitioner herein is one Panchaliammal. She filed a petition claiming maintenance from her step son Kanniappan the Respondent herein on the ground that she is not able to maintain herself and the Respondent is earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per mensem and therefore he may be ordered to pay Rs. 300/- per mensem for her maintenance.

The petition was contested by the Respondent contending that even though the Petitioner was his step mother he was not brought up by her and that as a step mother she is not entitled for maintenance from the Respondent.

The learned Magistrate held that u/s 125 , Code of Criminal Procedure only the natural mother can file a petition for maintenance and not a step mother and therefore the Petitioner who claims to be a step mother cannot claim maintenance. On this ground he dismissed the petition. Against the Petitioner step mother has filed this Criminal Revision.

Mrs.R. Kamala, learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner contends that the Court below is in error in holding that u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure a step mother is not entitled for maintenance. I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel. The Section clearly reads that a father or mother unable to maintain himself or herself is entitled for maintenance. It is not stated therein a step father or step mother. So to say that a step father or step mother is entitled for maintenance is to add those words to the words ''employed'' by the legislature. In my view such adding of the words is absolutely unwarranted.

In this connection it may be seen that regarding a child the legislature appears to be of the view that both ''legitimate'' and ''illegitimate child'' must be made entitled to maintenance and therefore they have clearly used the words ''legitimate'' or ''illegitimate child''. Therefore if really the legislature intended that a step father or step mother also must be made eligible, for maintenance they would have definitely used the words step father or step mother also.

The learned Counsel for the revision petition cited a judgment of the Orissa High Court in Pitei Bewa Vs. Laxmidhar Jena and Another, wherein a single Judge has stated that the word ''mother'' used in S.125 includes step mother also. But as against this decision the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would bring to my notice a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ayyagiri Suryanarayana Varaparasada Rao v. Ayyagiri Venkata Krishnaveni and Ors. (1989 Cri.L.J. 673) wherein, after referring to the said Orissa judgment in Pitei Bewa Vs. Laxmidhar Jena and Another, and also a Gujarat High Court judgment in Havaben Kasimbhai v. Razak Bhai ( 1978 Guj.L.R. 237) which also has held that a step mother was entitled to maintenance, disagreeing with these Judgments, in contra the division bench came to the conclusion that the word ''mother'' used in Section 125 means only the natural mother and not stepmother. I am in complete agreement with the said Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

In the result, therefore, I hold that the Court below has come to the right conclusion that the Petitioner-step mother is not entitled to maintenance. Thus I find no merit in the Criminal Revision. Accordingly it is dismissed.