Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 689 of 2014 Rathu Mahto, S/o Late Gokul Mahto, R/o Barora New Colony, P.O- Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora, Dist.-Dhanbad …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Hemia Devi, W/o Late Gokul Mahto, R/o Barora Basti, P.O-Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora, Dist.-Dhanbad …… Opposite Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate --------- 06/Dated:
03. 09/2015 This revision is directed against the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Maintenance Case No. 336 of 2010, whereby the court below has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- (four thousand) per month to O.P. No.2./wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that under Section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C, the word used is 'father or mother unable to maintain himself or herself. It is argued by the learned counsel that though in the Explanation of Section 125 Cr.P.C 'minor' and 'wife' has been defined but there is no clarification regarding the mother or father. Thus, in the absence of any explanation the only interpretation which can be made is that the word mother means the natural mother who has given birth to the son and it cannot be extended to include step mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the decision in Rewalal & Anr. Vs. Smt. Kamlabai, reported in 1986 Cri.L.J.282 M.P. and submitted that in para nos. 6 and 7 of the said judgment, it has been held that the meaning of mother can be extended so as to include an adoptive mother but not 'a step mother', accordingly the step mother is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel that even assuming the petitioner had given an undertaking at the time of getting employment, on compassionate ground in place of his father, the said undertaking or agreement cannot form the basis of granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The O.P. No.2 has the liberty to approach competent court under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act for enforcement of the terms of undertaking/agreement executed by the petitioner. It is argued that O.P. No.2 has admitted in her deposition that the petitioner earns Rs. 18,000/- (eighteen thousand) per month. That learned court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has to provide for the maintenance and educational expenses of his four sons and also provide for the maintenance of his family. Thus considering the liabilities of the petitioner the awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- (four thousand) per month is exorbitant and excessive. It is urged that O.P. No.2 has admitted that this petitioner has been paying her Rs. 1,200/- (one thousand and two hundred) per month. It is urged that the other sons of the O.P./step mother also have the responsibility and are liable to provide for the maintenance to the O.P. That O.P.'s son is gainfully employed, hence, fastening the liability for providing the maintenance only upon this petitioner is not tenable in law or on facts. It is submitted that in view of the exposited facts and the judicial pronouncement, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Per contra learned counsel for O.P. No.2 argued that the question 'whether the step mother is entitled to maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C has been considered and discussed in the impugned order/judgment and reference has been made to the decision in the case of Kritikant Vrs. State of Gujrat, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that step mother is also entitled to maintenance under Section 125Cr.P.C. That there is evidence on record that the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand). It is admitted that he had got the employment on compassionate ground and he had given an undertaking to maintain the O.P. i.e. his step mother. It is further submitted that till date, the petitioner has not paid any money towards maintenance despite the order of the learned trial Court. Heard. Perused the decision reported in 1986, Cri.L.J., M.P, 282 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case the learned judge has discussed the provision of Clause (20) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act and held that as per the definition father, in case of anyone whose personal law permits adoptions, shall include adoptive father accordingly it was held that an adoptive mother has the same status as that of adoptive father but 'the step mother' does not come within the purview of 'adoptive mother', hence she is not entitled to make any claim against her step son. Admittedly the expression and word 'mother' has not been explained in Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the case of Krtikant D. Vadodaria Vrs. State of Gujrat (1996)4, SCC479 the Apex Court has held that mother and step mother have separate identities and status. It has been elaborated that mother means the natural mother who has given birth to the child and cannot be extended to encompass the wife by another marriage. While holding that mother and step mother are separate entities, the Apex Court also observed that object and scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C has to be borne in mind. Section 125 Cr.P.C has been incorporated as a social legislation essentially to compel a person who has the means and income to fulfill the moral and legal obligation by providing for the maintenance of the wife, child or parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to secure social justice by ensuring that the dependents are not compelled or forced to live a life in destitution and beggary. Considering that Section 125 Cr.P.C is a benevolent legislation the Supreme Court held that a childless step-mother is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per the exposited facts of the case in hand, it is admitted that the O.P. No.2 was married to the petitioner's father who was an employee of B.C.C.L. The father was declared medically unfit, and the petitioner got the employment in place of his father. From the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of O.P./step mother, it is revealed that prior to the appointment of the petitioner, a panchayati had taken place wherein the petitioner had agreed and given an undertaking to provide for the maintenance of his step-mother/O.P. on his getting the employment in place of his father. Therefore, since he had given an undertaking he cannot be permitted to backout from the commitment made by him. It is settled proposition of law that Section 125Cr.P.C. is a benevolent legislation. It is not disputed that O.P./step mother had cared for and looked after the petitioner after the demise of his natural mother. O.P.W.-2, the petitioner's witness, has admitted that O.P/step mother had given no objection to the authorities of B.C.C.L for appointment of petitioner in place of her husband i.e. father of the petitioner. Petitioner had also given an undertaking before the authorities that he would provide for the expenses of his mother and siblings. It is abundantly clear that O.P./ step-mother had sacrificed her claim of employment by giving a no objection certificate to facilitate the appointment of the petitioner to the job in place of her husband. The no objection must have been given on the basis of the assurance and undertaking of the petitioner that he would provide for her maintenance. O.P.W.-2 has deposed that petitioner draws a salary of Rs. 30,000/-. It is noticed that though petitioner has stated that O.P./step mother's son is gainfully employed but no evidence has been produced to show that O.P./step mother's son is gainfully employed neither the company or organization in which he is employed has been mentioned . In fact O.P. has stated that her son is a school going student. It is evident that she has to pay for the educational expenses of her school going son and also for other daily needs. It is evident that the petitioner did not examine himself in the proceeding in the court below hence an inference is drawn that he has suppressed the actual state of affairs and has not come with clean hands. In the emergent facts and circumstances, the order passed by learned Judge directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- (four thousand) per month to the O.P. No.2-step mother does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result the revision is hereby dismissed. (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Satayendra/