The Allahabad high court has held that a mother who has already been granted maintenance from her biological son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot subsequently seek another maintenance order against her step-son, observing that once she is receiving maintenance, she is no longer incapable of maintaining herself.
The observation came in an order dated July 14 by Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a woman challenging a Family Court order that directed only her biological son to pay her ₹8,000 per month as maintenance.
The petitioner argued that the Family Court erred by fastening the liability solely on her biological son and not directing her step-son to contribute towards her maintenance. She contended that both sons should have been made liable.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the State and the step-son argued that since the biological son had sufficient means and had already been directed to maintain his mother, the step-son could not be held liable.
Examining Section 125 CrPC, the court said that while deciding a maintenance claim by parents, it must determine whether the claimant is unable to maintain herself and whether the person from whom maintenance is sought has sufficient means to provide support.
The HC noted that it was undisputed that the revisionist was the biological mother of opposite party no. 3 and the stepmother of opposite party no. 2. “ After the order of trial court the amount for her maintenance has been earned by court’s order...opposite party no. 3 has not challenged such order meaning thereby opposite party no. 3 has accepted the order of the trial court...now the revisionist is capable of maintaining herself by getting the maintenance amount from her real son so now she has lost her status of incapability to maintain herself,” the HC observed.
{{/usCountry}}The HC noted that it was undisputed that the revisionist was the biological mother of opposite party no. 3 and the stepmother of opposite party no. 2. “ After the order of trial court the amount for her maintenance has been earned by court’s order...opposite party no. 3 has not challenged such order meaning thereby opposite party no. 3 has accepted the order of the trial court...now the revisionist is capable of maintaining herself by getting the maintenance amount from her real son so now she has lost her status of incapability to maintain herself,” the HC observed.
{{/usCountry}}The bench, however, clarified that where two or more persons are legally obligated to maintain a claimant and the issue arises before the court at the initial stage, it is the court’s duty to determine who should pay maintenance and to what extent.
Finding no legal basis to interfere with the Family Court’s order, the HC dismissed the revision petition. It also observed that the plea appeared to have been filed only to harass the step-son.