PITOI BOWA Vs. LAXMIDHAR JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) petitioner is the third wife of late Nan Jena and opposite parties 1 and 2 are the sons of Nan Jena through his second wife. After the death of Nan Jena as opposite parties neglected the petitioner and her two minor daughters, they filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. It was asserted in their petition that petitionerTs husband Nan Jena had left some landed properly which had been cultivated by the opposite parties and further opposite party No. 1 was an Assistant in the office of the Inspector of Schools. The opposite parties in their objection asserted that the petitioner was not the wife of Nan Jena and further she was not unable to maintain herself. It was also averred by them that some of the lands of Nan Jena had been given to the petitioner for her maintenance and, therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance from them. The learned Magistrate came to hold that the petitioner was the wife of Nan Jena and stepmother of the opposite parties. He further found that the petitioner was unable to maintain herself as she was not in possession of any landed property left by Nan Jena. The learned Magistrate then recorded a finding that the opposite parties have sufficient means and are neglecting the petitioner. Ultimately he directed the opposite parties to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 70/- to the petitioner and so far as the petitioner daughters are concerned, the learned Magistrate held that the daughters were not entitled to maintenance.

(2.) The opposite parties carried a revision before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 1981 and the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the word TmotherT occurring in clause (d) of Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not include a stepmother and, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to be maintained by her step-sons. On this finding, he allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) Mr. Sahoo appearing for the petitioner contends that the word mother occurring in clause (d) of section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CodeTT)T includes a step-mother and keeping in. view the object of the provisions of the Code, there is no reason to exclude a stepmother from her right to be maintained by her step-sons from out of the assets of her late husband. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, submits that in view of the language used in clause (d) of section 125(1), namely, his father or mother, it obviously refers to the natural parents of the person on whom the liability to maintain is being fastened and would not include any woman whom his father had married. The rival contentions require careful examination of the provisions of section 125(1)(d) of the Code.