LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-428

SATTAR AND ANOTHER Vs. CHERIYA AND ANOTHER

Decided On May 17, 2013
SATTAR AND ANOTHER Appellant
V/S
CHERIYA AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for quashing of order dated 11.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby revision filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed and order dated 15.02.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, has been set aside. The application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 125 of the Code against her stepsons petitioners has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code stating therein that she is a poor and old widow aged about 65 years. The property of her husband was inherited by the petitioners, her real sons Suresh and Balbir (deceased). It is also admitted that husband of respondent no.1 performed two marriages i.e. one with respondent no.1 and the other with Smt. Phulli. From the wedlock of respondent no.1 with Kishna (husband of respondent no.1 and father of the petitioners and respondent No.2), a son, namely Suresh respondent no.2 was born, whereas from the wedlock of Phulli with Kishna, two sons, namely Sattar and Balwan (petitioners herein) were born. A Will was executed in favour of his sons by the deceased husband of respondent no.1.

(3.) The parties appeared and various grounds were taken before the Trial Court. In the reply, the basic ground of the petitioners was that respondent no.1 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioners since she and her real son (respondent no.2) had inherited the property of the deceased husband. The mother cannot claim maintenance from step sons when the real sons are alive. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, declined the petition of respondent no.1 filed under Section 125 of the Code vide order dated 15.02.2010. Aggrieved against the same, respondent no.1 preferred a revision petition which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide impugned order dated 11.05.2012. Hence, this criminal revision.