MADHURI BAI Vs. MINOR SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. , has been filed as the petitioner-mother feels aggrieved by the order dated 10-2-98 in Cr. Revision No. 181/96, by 1st A. S. J. Raigarh, affirming the order dated 3-7-96 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saranggarh in Misc. Cr. Case No. 56/95, granting maintenance in favour of the minor sons of the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present petition are that the non-applicants-minor sons of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , through their grand-father as their guardian, claiming amount of maintenance against their mother- the present petitioner. The father of the non-applicants had died while in service as Helper in the M. P. E. B. . His wife- the present petitioner is admittedly receiving family pension after the death of her husband. The trial Court allowed the petition of minor sons-the non-applicants and granted maintenance of Rs. 200/- to each of them. The order was confirmed in revision by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. only the father can be directed to pay maintenance to the minor sons, and that under the said provision the mother was not under an obligation to pay maintenance to her minor sons. In this connection reliance has been placed on a decision of Madras High Court in T. P. S. H. Selva Saroja v. T. P. S. H. Sasinathana (1989 Cri. L. J. 2032 ). It was, therefore, submitted that the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance and the order in revision directing the petitioner-mother to pay maintenance to her minor sons, is illegal. It has also been urged that though the petitioner is willing to keep her sons with her, but they are refusing to live with her, and therefore, she is not liable to pay any amount towards their maintenance.