Smt. Sandar Bai vs Sugandh Kumar

M.B. Sharma, J.—I will only confine myself m this revision petition which is directed against the judgment dated 5th Oct., 1989, of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3 Kota to the important question; as to whether within the term "Mother" in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125. Cr. PC. "Step-mother" is also included and if the conditions mentioned there in are satisfied, she will be entitled for maintenance. It may be stated that there is no dispute between the parties that petitioner is the stepmother of respondent Sugandh Kumar. Laxmi Chand, husband of the petitioner died in the year 1962, leaving behind substantial properties. When Laxmi Chand died, his mother and the mother-in-law of the petitioner was alive and she died some time in the year 1980 According to the petitioner till the death of her mother-in-law she was maintained and kept properly but soon after her death, the respondent started mal-treating the petitioner, took all the ornaments and she was turned out of the house. The petitioner is aged about 62 years and as per her case she has no means of her own to support herself. The monthly income of the respondent as per the case of the petitioner was Rs. 10,000/-. She claimed the maintenance of Rs. 1000/-p.m. The application was contested by the respondent and the proceedings are still pending, but the learned Magistrate, under his order dated 10th April, 1989, ordered payment of interim maintenance to the petitioner by the respondent at rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. The respondent being aggrieved against the aforesaid order, filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge under the impugned judgment allowed the revision petition only on the ground that Under Sub-section (1) of Section 125, Cr. PC and more so under its clause (d) step-mother is not entitled maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge has not gone into the merits of the case so far as the award of interim maintenance is concerned.

It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that within the term "mother" as used in clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125, Cr. PC step-mother will also be included. According to him this is a social measure to a meliorate conditions of the wife, legitimate or illegitimate minor children and this term will carry in its sweep stemp-mother also The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that use of the words "his" before the term "father or mother" merely goes to show that the intention of the framers of law was to only provide maintenance to the natural lather or mother as the case may be, who is unable to maintain himself or herself and the step-mother is not entitled to any such maintenance. In support of their respectful contentions both the learned Counsel have referred to the decisions of various Courts. In the case of Pitoi Bowa v. Laxmidhar Jena and Anr. 1985 (1) Crimes 951, the learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court examined the question which has arisen for consideration in the present revision petition The learned Judge said that the provision being a beneficial one intended to curb some social evil should be construed liberally and no word should be used in any restrictive sense unless and until the intention of the legislation appears to be so. The learned Judge further said that to him there appears to be nothing in the Code which even gives an idea that the Legislature intended to interpret the word "mother" in Section 125(1)(d) in a restrictive sense to apply only to a natural mother. In taking the aforesaid view the learned Judge referred to the case of Havaben Karimbhai Belim v. Razakbhai and Ors. (1978 Guj. LR 237. In the aforesaid case while dealing with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code, the Court refused to take a restrictive view and observing that the provision makes erring husband and erring children fulfil its social purpose where such husband and children neglect or refuse to maintain the wife or parents respectively, the Court said that within the term "mother" even the step-mother is included and will be entitled for maintenance in case the conditions mentioned in Section 125 Cr. PC are satisfied. The learned Judge did not agree with view taken in 1976 Maharashtra Law Journal 565, wherein it was held that the word "his" before father or mother" is not without significance and the mother who is entitled for maintenance must be called "his" mother, A look at Criminal Practice by D.R. Prem, 7th Edition at page 137 will show that the authority of 1982 Allahabad Cr R 384, has been referred, the same is not available either with the learned Counsel or in the library of this Court. But it appears that the view was taken in the aforesaid case that an application for maintenance by a step-mother cannot be rejected merely because she is a step-mother. In the other case which shall be referred to shortly, a view has been taken that the term "mother" in clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr. PC does not include step-mother and the step-mother is not entitled to any maintenance u/s 125(1)(d), Cr. PC The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rawalal and mothers v. Smt Kamlabai 1986 Cr. L.J. 282, took a view that step-mother cannot maintenance from her step son, though it was held that adopted, mother will be included in the definition of term "mother" under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr. PC. The Court further said that as per its natural meaning the word "mother" meant a female parent i.e. a woman who has given a birth to a child. The Court further said that there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure to give an extended meaning of the word "mother" any further so as to include step-mother also within its compass. In the aforesaid case the learned Judge referred to the case of 1976 Maharashtra Law Journal 565. In the case of Ayyagari Suryanarayana Vara Prasad Rao v. Ayyagari Venkatakrishna Veni and Anr. 1989 Cr. L.J. 673, a similar view was taken that step-mother cannot attain status of mother for purpose of claiming maintenance u/s 125. The earlier case 1987(2) AP LJ (HC) 153, was over ruled. In the aforesaid case (1987) 2 A.J.P.L.J. (HC) 153, the learned Judge agreed with the views taken by the Gujarat and Orissa High Court referred to in the earlier part of this order. It was held that step-mother cannot claim the status of mother for the for the purpose u/s 125 Cr. PC and she may seek the other remedies available to her in law.

It will appear from the aforesaid precedents that contrary views have been taken in the aforesaid authorities as to whether within the term "mother" step-mother will also be included for the purpose of cl. (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 or not. The term "mother" has not been defined any where in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or even in the General Clauses Act In my opinion even the step-mother has the status of a mother, the provisions contained in Section 125 Cr. PC are meant for the benefit of the persons mentioned there in and the rule of constructions is well-settled that beneficient provisions will liberally be constructed. The intention of the legislature in providing for grant of maintenance under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 to mother is that if they have no means to support themselves, they can claim maintenance from a son who has sufficient means but still neglects or refuses to maintain them. Taking into consideration the object with which the aforesaid provision was enacted, in my opinion the term "mother" in clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 should be liberally construed and if so construed then in the expression "mother" even the step-mother shall be included in case he conditions mentioned in Section 125, Cr. PC are satisfied even the step-mother will be entitled for maintenance.

Consequently, I here by allow this revision petition, Set-aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and sent the case Back to him with a direction to decide the revision petition on merits. Both the parties are directed to be present in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota, on 7th May, 1990. The record may also be remitted to that Court.