If A Stepfather Fulfills Responsibilities As Biological Father The Stepson Can't Deny His Obligation To Maintain Him: Calcutta High Court

Update: 2022-08-30 13:33 GMT

The Calcutta High Court has observed that when a stepfather fulfills the same responsibilities as the biological father, a stepson cannot deny his obligation to maintain him. Similarly, the Court held that a biological mother, who has contracted the second marriage, has always a right to claim maintenance from her son.The bench of Justice Kausik Chanda held thus as it stressed that the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Calcutta High Court has observed that when a stepfather fulfills the same responsibilities as the biological father, a stepson cannot deny his obligation to maintain him. Similarly, the Court held that a biological mother, who has contracted the second marriage, has always a right to claim maintenance from her son.

The bench of Justice Kausik Chanda held thus as it stressed that the legal liability to pay maintenance to parents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises out of the moral obligation of children.

"It is in recognition of reciprocal obligation of the children towards their parents, who have made immense sacrifices for their betterment and raised them with unconditional love and affection," the Court further remarked.

The case in brief 

The petitioner (Sunil Debsharma) lost his father in his early childhood. Her mother (Fuldi Debsharma) married one Thelu Debsharma (opposite party no.2) who was also a widower, and from his first marriage, he had one son and two daughters.

Petitioner was, thereafter, raised by his biological mother and foster father along with his stepbrother and sisters. Sunil got married in the year 2010 and started living separately with his wife. In the year 2016, Thelu (stepfather) and Fuldi (biological) together filed an application under section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the petitioner.

By the order impugned dated August 18, 2018, the Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs.2,500/- each per month in favor of Thelu and Fuldi to be paid by Sunil/petitioner. He challenged the order in revision before the High Court.

Meanwhile, the wife of the petitioner died an unnatural death by succumbing to burn injuries. The petitioner alleged that his stepfather (Thelu) and biological mother (Fuldi) committed the murder of his wife. The police, in course of the investigation, arrested Thelu and Fuldi and upon completion of the investigation filed a charge sheet against them.

Now, in the instant revision plea, the petitioner argued that such misdoings of Thelu and Fuldi disentitled them from claiming any maintenance from him. It has been further submitted that during the lockdown, he lost his job and as such he was not in a position to pay any maintenance to his mother and stepfather.

Court's observations

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court noted that at the time of the second marriage of her mother, Sunil/petitioner was only aged about 3 years, and he was raised by his biological mother and stepfather.

The Court also noted that no case was made out by the petitioner that being a stepfather, Thelu has not taken due care and did not show his love and affection towards him.Thus, the Court held that it cannot be said that Thelu cannot claim maintenance from his stepson leaving aside his biological children. Likewise, the Court also opined that even the biological mother can seek maintenance from the petitioner.

Having said so, the Court also noted that since both the stepfather and biological mother have been arrested during the pendency of this application in connection with the unnatural death of the petitioner's wife and the fact that the petitioner has lost his job during the lockdown period, the Court observed that the order of the court below had practically rendered infructuous and therefore, the same was set aside.

However, the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate for hearing the case afresh (and conclude hearing in 6 months) and the parties have been given the liberty to adduce further evidence to bring on record the subsequent events. 

Case title - SUNIL DEBSHARMA v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 298

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Tags:    

Similar News