AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] In this revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the only point which arises for determination is as to whether a motherÂinÂ‐
law can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[2] The facts as are necessary for the decision of the revision are to the effect that the husband of the applicant who is the fatherÂinÂlaw of the
respondents was serving in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. While being on duty he died on 23.10.2000. One of his sons Rameshwar
who was the husband of respondent no.1 was appointed on compassionate ground in place of his father. Unfortunately, even Rameshwar died on
22.08.2009. Respondent no.1 being the widow got appointment in his place on compassionate ground. The elder son of the applicant who was the
husband of respondent no.2 also died on 14.03.2009. It was then alleged that the husband of the applicant had purchased couple of house properties
one of which was standing in the name of Rameshwar, there is one more house standing in his name. The other house property is in possession of
respondent no.2. Both the respondents have been earning by letting some portion of the house properties. They are also earning from agriculture.
However, they are not providing anything for maintenance of the applicant who is old aged. There are no means for her to maintain herself. She made
a request for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/Â per month from the respondents jointly and severally.
[3] The respondent no.1 opposed the application, inter alia on the ground that being motherÂinÂlaw the applicant was not entitled to claim
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She however, expressed her willingness to maintain the applicant. She barely got
sufficient income from the salary and had to maintain a son and was not having sufficient means to provide maintenance to the applicant separately.
Respondent no.2 denied the allegations but submitted that she was ready and willing to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Court.
[4] The learned Family Court Judge by the impugned order dated 06.05.2017 dismissed the application on the ground that the application having been
made by a motherÂinÂlaw who is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the daughterÂinÂlaw,
the application was not maintainable and dismissed it. Even otherwise on merits he held that the applicant was having a share in the joint family
properties. There were three daughters of the applicant, one of whom is a Lecturer and other two are economically sound and it was the daughters
who were liable to provide maintenance to the applicant, who his their mother and therefore, she was not entitled to claim maintenance.
[5] The learned Advocate for the applicant by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs. Chandrakalabai
Polshetwar and a nother ; 2009 (4) Mh. L. J. 665 , submitted that this Court has awarded maintenance to motherÂinÂlaw under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the same course should be followed even in the matter in hand. The learned Advocate submitted that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances when the husband of respondent no.1 who was primarily liable to pay maintenance to the applicant had secured
appointment/employment on compassionate ground after death of his father, and when even she has similarly got the employment on compassionate
ground after demise of her husband, it is her moral and legal duty to provide maintenance to the applicant. He would further point out that there is
ample evidence to show that respondents have been earning from rent. The house properties are personal/self acquired properties of the husband of
the applicant, still it is the respondents who are earning rent and have not been providing anything/any share to the applicant. Therefore, the order
passed by the learned Family Court Judge ignoring all these facts and circumstances and the decision in the case of Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs.
Chandrakalabai Polshetwar and another : 2009(4) Mh.L.J.665 is not sustainable in law and may be quashed and setÂaside and the applicant may be
awarded maintenance.
[6] The learned Advocate for respondent no.1 strongly opposed the application. He submitted that a motherÂinÂlaw is not covered by the provision
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is not entitled to claim maintenance from the daughterÂinÂlaw. In fact the applicant has
three daughters who are primarily liable to pay maintenance to her under that provision and still the applicant had chosen to invoke the provision
against the daughtersÂinÂlaw. It is not tenable. She may have a remedy under the civil law in an appropriate proceeding. However, the respondents
cannot be fastened with any liability under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Advocate therefore, prayed to dismiss the
revision.
[7] I have perused the record. Perusal of the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly shows that it is only the following
persons who are entitled to claim maintenance.
(a) Wife ;
(b) Legitimate or illegitimate children, whether married or not unable to maintain itself ;
(c) Legitimate or illegitimate child ( not being a married daughter ) who has attained majority but where such child is, by reason of any physical or
mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain itself ; (d) Father or mother.
[8] Its are exhaustive list of persons who are entitled to claim maintenance under this provision. No other relation can resort to this provision. When
the legislature in its wisdom has restricted the remedy to specified class of persons/relatives of the person who is liable to provide for maintenance the
list is apparently exhaustive and there is no scope of any interpretation being put to it so as to include a relative which is not covered by this list. In
view of such a legal provision, when admittedly the applicant is the motherÂinÂlaw of the respondents she is not entitled to resort to this provision for
claiming maintenance. There is no scope for reading down this provision so as to include the motherÂinlaw in its sweep.
[9] The decision in the case of Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar and another : 2009(4) Mh.L.J.665 in my considered view,
was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In that case the sole son had died and the daughterÂinÂlaw had secured
employment in his place on compassionate ground and had submitted an undertaking to the employer to maintain the motherÂinÂlaw. She having
failed to act in accordance with the undertaking, the motherÂinÂlaw had claimed maintenance. In such peculiar state of affairs, she was held entitled
to claim maintenance. In my considered view, with utmost respect, the decision in the case of Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs. Chandrakalabai
Polshetwar and another : 2009(4) Mh.L.J.665 cannot be followed as a precedent. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to claim any benefit from
this decision.
[10] One can fruitfully refer to the decision in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujart ; ( 1996) 4 SCC 479 . In that case, it was held
that a stepmother does not falls in the category of expression mother and was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. When the legislature has clearly excluded any other relations by expressly providing for only the specified list/relations to be entitled to
claim maintenance, there is no scope for any interpretation in the matter in hand. The relation of motherÂinÂlaw is conspicuously absent and she
cannot claim maintenance by resorting to this provision.
[11] Needless to state that the applicant being motherÂinÂlaw may independently have civil rights to claim partition or even the maintenance.
However, she is not entitled to take recourse to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[12] Apart from the above state of affairs, even otherwise the applicant admittedly has three daughters and it has come in the evidence that one of the
daughters is a Lecturer and still when the daughters are liable to maintain the applicant the latter has for the reasons best known to her not resorted to
this provision for claiming maintenance.
[13] Be that as it may, the application preferred by the applicant under Section 125 was not maintainable and no fault can be found with such a
conclusion drawn by the learned Judge and dismissing it for that reasons. For that matter even on facts the observations and the conclusions drawn by
him are clearly borne out from correct appreciation of the evidence and by no stretch of imagination can it be said to be either perverse or arbitrary or
capricious.
[14] The revision is dismissed.