LABANYA SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this case is whether a major unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from her old mother under section 125, Cr.P.C. Petitioner Labanya Senapati is the widow of one Souri Charan Senapati. The couple had been blessed with four sons and four daughters, and present opposite party No. 2 being the eldest daughter. Late Souri Charan Senapati was a Government employee. After his death in harness in 1998, the petition is receiving family pension and one of the sons of the deceased employee has been given compassionate/rehabilitation appointment in the Excise Department. While matter stood thus, opposite party No. 2, the eldest daughter, filed petition under section 125, Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 186 of 1998, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500.00 besides a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000.00 towards the litigation expenses from the petitioner-mother and two brothers alleging that after the death of her father the latter had been neglecting to maintain her and were harassing her. She further alleged that the petitioner-mother had received all the financial dues of her deceased father and had been receiving family pension also besides enjoying the usufructs of the landed properties left by her father. She claimed that she was entitled to live in her paternal house and to be maintained herself by her mother from the income out of the estate left by her deceased father and the family pension received by her.

(2.) The present petitioner and her two sons who are arrayed as opposite parties in the case filed under section 125, Cr.P.C. as stated above, appeared before the Court below and filed their counter inter alia taking the stand that there were four unmarried daughters of Souri Charan Mohapatra and the amount of family pension being not sufficient for maintenance of all the family members, it was not possible to provide separate maintenance to opposite party No. 2. The allegation that deceased Souri Charan Mohapatra had left behind landed property was denied. They further averred that opposite party No. 2- daughter was very obstinate. She never respected the elder members in the family and although she was of marriageable age used to remain outside of her own 'accord' and when her activities were not appreciated by the other members of the family she had alleged that she was being harassed. The allegation of opposite party No. 2 that she was being neglected by her mother and other family members was strongly repudiated. According to them, opposite party No. 2 was educated and she was earning not less than Rs. 2,000 per month from private tuition and therefore the petition filed by her under section 125, Cr.P.C. was liable to be rejected.

(3.) In order to substantiate their respective cases, opposite party No. 2 (Petitioner before the Court below) got examined herself and another as witnesses on her behalf, while petitioner (opposite party No. 1 before the Court below) got examined herself and another as witnesses on her behalf. No documentary evidence was adduced by either side. The Trial Court after discussing on the evidence came to the conclusion that as the applicant-daughter was unable to earn her livelihood she was entitled to maintenance by her mother and directed the latter to pay a monthly maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month. The said order of the Trial Court was assailed in revision by the mother, the present petitioner, being registered as Crl. Rev. No. 54 of 2001/99 of 2001. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal who heard the said revision, after taking into consideration the submissions of the parties came to the conclusion that the Trial Court had not committed any error. He also held that an unmarried daughter who was not able to maintain herself can claim maintenance under section 125, Cr.P.C. and accordingly dismissed the revision.