Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 637 (JHR)

Akhtar Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2010-05-24

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
ORDER : D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner in this revision application, has challenged the impugned order of the Court below dated 3.12.2007 whereby, the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance Rs. 1,000 to each of the opposite party No. 1, Nizam and opposite party No. 2, Umera Khatoon since 10.8.2006. 3. From the rival submissions of the Counsel for the parties, it appears that admittedly, after passing of the impugned order, the opposite party No. 2 namely, Nizam who was the father of the present Petitioner, has died. It also appears that the opposite party No. 3 namely, Umera Khatoon is the step mother of the Petitioner. 4. As explained by the Counsel for the Petitioner, Umera Khatoon (OP No. 3) is the third wife of the Petitioner's father. The Petitioner's father had retired from service way back in the year 1999. Learned Counsel adds that Umera Khatoon (OP No. 3) is not childless. Rather, she has one issue from her former husband. 5. Learned Counsel argues that as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 479 , Petitioner is not obliged to maintain his step mother since she has her own natural children. 6. Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 submits on the other hand that the judgment in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria (supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case, in view of the fact that the opposite party No. 3 has no son, though, she has a natural born issue but such issue is a daughter who has been married and living separately from the opposite party No. 3 at her matrimonial house. The opposite party No. 3 is thus virtually helpless and save and except the Petitioner, there is no one in her family to maintain her. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had gained service on the basis of the service of his father (O.P. No. 2) and therefore, the Petitioner is not only duty bound to take care of her step mother (O.P. No. 3), but is also obliged to provide maintenance to her. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had gained service on the basis of the service of his father (O.P. No. 2) and therefore, the Petitioner is not only duty bound to take care of her step mother (O.P. No. 3), but is also obliged to provide maintenance to her. To buttress his argument learned Counsel would refer to a judgment of the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ulleppa and Others vs. Smt. Gangabai, (2003) Cri.L.J. 2566. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not able to controvert the submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 that the lady has only one natural born issue and that too, a daughter who is already married and living separately at her matrimonial house. 8. The facts of the case would demonstrate that the opposite party No. 3 though being the step mother of the Petitioner, is virtually helpless and has no body to maintain her. In the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria (supra), while explaining the scope and applicability of the provisions of Section 125, Cr. PC, the Supreme Court has observed that the purpose behind the benevolent provisions of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure is that a childless step mother is entitled to claim maintenance from her step son provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of maintaining her. 9. Going by the observations of the Apex Court, the step mother cannot claim maintenance from her step son if she has a natural born adult son who is capable of earning. The liability of the step son would not extinguish if the step mother does not have any natural born adult son who is capable of earning. This aspect of the matter was taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ulleppa and Others (supra). The liability of the step son would not extinguish if the step mother does not have any natural born adult son who is capable of earning. This aspect of the matter was taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ulleppa and Others (supra). After considering the several judgments of the Supreme Court in the context of claim for maintenance of the step mother, including the judgment in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria (supra), the Single Judge has observed that if the step mother is a widow and that, she has natural born daughter, but such daughter is married and living separately at her matrimonial house, the Court can extend the logic and reasoning's of the Supreme Court by way of allowing maintenance to the step mother considering the fact that she is helpless step mother. 10. In my opinion, the ratio decided in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria case (supra), does squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The learned Court below has directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 only per month towards maintenance of the step mother. The quantum had been fixed after considering the earnings of the Petitioner. In the attending circumstances, since the Petitioner's father namely, the opposite party No. 2 has died, the Petitioner may claim himself to be absolved from the liability to pay the amount of maintenance which he would have had to pay to his father, had his father remained alive. 11. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order of maintenance which the Petitioner has been directed to pay to his step mother namely, the opposite party No. 3. 12. This revision application is dismissed.