S.125 CrPC | Mother Being Maintained By Real Son Cannot Claim 'Another Maintenance' From Step-Son: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla thus dismissed a criminal revision filed by a woman seeking modification of a Family Court order to also hold her stepson liable for maintenance, even though her real son had already been directed to pay her ₹8,000 per month.

It was her stance that the trial court had wrongly fastened liability to pay maintenance solely on the real son (opposite party no. 3), and erred in imposing no liability on her step-son (opposite party no. 2).

In essence, her counsel argued that both sons ought to have been directed to pay maintenance.

Opposing the plea, the Counsel appearing for the State and the step-son submitted that, in the presence of the real son, who has sufficient means to maintain his mother, the step-son cannot be held liable for the same.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench perused Section 125 CrPC to note that while considering a claim for maintenance by parents, the Court has to determine the relationship between the parties, whether the parent is unable to maintain herself, and whether the person from whom maintenance is claimed has sufficient means to provide such maintenance.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that the revisionist was the biological mother of the opposite party. 3 and the stepmother of the opposite party no. 2.

It further observed that although she may have been unable to maintain herself when she initially filed the maintenance application, and for this reason, the Family Court had directed her real son to pay maintenance

However, after that order, the circumstances had changed, and now the revisionist is "capable of maintaining herself" as she is getting maintenance from her real son.

The High Court observed:

"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 is accepted the order of trial court...now the revisionist is capable to maintain herself getting the maintenance amount from her real son so now she is lost her status of incapability to maintain herself".

The Court added that a person's inability to maintain himself/herself ceases upon the Court's order directing payment of maintenance. The person in whose favour the maintenance order is passed cannot claim another maintenance from another person, the Court noted.

The bench, however, clarified that it is the right of the claimant that if there are two or more persons under an obligation to maintain the applicant, in what ratio the maintenance amount is to be paid.

It is the Court's duty to decide from whom and to what extent maintenance is to be made payable, the Court further added.

In view of this, finding no reason to interfere, the High Court dismissed the revision plea. It was, however, also observed that the plea had been filed solely with the intention of harassing the stepson, without any substantive legal basis.