BHARATI MAHANTA Vs. NARAHARI MAHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner-Bharati Mahanta, who has sought to challenge the order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2008 affirming the order dated 06.08.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Champua in CMC No. 112 of 2007 whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Champua came to hold that the Bharati Mahanta v. Narahari Mahanta (I. Mahanty, J.) application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Opposite Parties (fatherin-law and mother-in-law of the widow Petitioner) is maintainable in the eye of law.

(2.) Mr. D. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, inter alia submitted that the Opposite Parties had only one child, namely, Amrut Charan Mahanta (husband of the present Petitioner) who passed away on 27.08.1995. Late Amrut Charana Mahanta was working as a Peon in Badanai High School and on his demise, his widow, namely, the present Petitioner, was provided with employment as a Peon under the Rehabilitation Scheme in place of her deceased husband. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties asserted that since the Petitioner has availed all the death and pensionary benefits of her deceased husband and has been appointed as a Peon in place of her husband, she is liable to maintain her father-in-law and mother-in-law-Opposite Parties herein. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the proceeding under Section 125(1)(d) Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be initiated by the parents-in-law against their widow daughter-in-law. Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is quoted herein below.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further asserted that the Petitioner does not stand in the shoes of her deceased husband, since she has not in herited or enjoyed any share in the ancestral property and nowhere it is found that in case of death of the Petitioner's husband, his parents can claim maintenance against their daughter-in-law. Hence it is submitted that a widow daughter-in-law cannot be placed on the same footing as that of her deceased husband. It is also submitted that the present Opposite Parties INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011]have possess 10 Acres of landed properties and are cultivating the same by ingaging labourers and earning near about rupees one lakh per year from cultivation. It is further asserted that the Opposite Party No. 1 is maintaining four wives with whom he is enjoying the benefit of the properties and the Petitioner has been deprived of her right to inherit her husband's properties and shares in the ancestral property by the Opposite Party No. 1.