LAWS(P&H)-1984-7-51

PARBATI ALIAS PARO Vs. KHIALI RANI

Decided On July 26, 1984
Parbati Alias Paro Appellant
V/S
Khiali Rani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which requires consideration in the present revision petition is to find out as to whether the term "mother" as used in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) includes a "step mother" in its import.

(2.) THE facts arc very brief. The petitioner, who is the step-mother of the opposite party instituted proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, making the averments entitling her to maintenance. The main ground on which the petitioner claimed maintenance was that she being the widow of Hazari and the respondents being the sons of Hazari from his first wife, she was entitled to maintenance from them because the entire property of her husband had been transferred in their names. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she being their step mother, does not fall within the expression "mother" and, therefore, irrespective of the merits of the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The trial Magistrate awarded Rs. 150/- P.M. as maintenance to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents went up in revision and the same was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, on August 17, 1983 while observing that when the petitioner's sons and daughters are alive, she has no right to claim maintenance from her step-sons. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) IT is necessary to state here that the provisions for making an order for the maintenance of father or mother was for the first time introduced in the Code of 1973. In Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was replaced by the Code of 1973, there was no provision for passing an order against the son to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his father or mother. Obviously, therefore, there is no previous authority on the precise point that arises for consideration in this case.