NEELKANTH SAHU Vs. SOHEDRA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Being aggrieved by the revisional order under which maintenance has been allowed in favour of the widow mother, the applicants/sons have filed this revision petition challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the order granting maintenance.

(2.) Submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants are that the mother has 1 /3rd share in the property, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance, From the records it clearly appears that the widow has some share in the property left by her husband but she is not in possession of the said property and was required to file a suit for partition and possession. If that is so then it cannot be argued that the mother is possessed of some property from where she can maintain herself.

(3.) The other limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the daughter of the non-applicant, that is sister of the present applicants is maintaining the widow properly and for this reason also she would not be entitled to any maintenance. In the opinion of this Court this argument is an argument of frustration. If somebody is looking after the mother of the applicants, it cannot be argued that the applicants would be relieved of their duties morally and statutorily. The Court below has given cogent reasons for granting application. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.