IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.343 of 2006 ABUL KALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 . 14.8.2008 . Heard the parties. This application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Maintenance Case No.205 of 2002 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to the opposite party no.2 Mostt. Bibi Sohra Khatoon under section 125 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no.2 is said to be step mother of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order impugned mainly on the ground that the word “mother” used in section 125 (1)(d) Cr.P.C. does not include “step mother” and, therefore, the petitioner is not obliged to pay maintenance to the opposite party no.2. It is well settled that the word “mother” used in section 125 Cr.P.C. means natural mother who has given birth to the child. However, provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to provide social justice to women, children and infirm parents. Even step mother cannot be left in helpless state of distress and starvation. In certain circumstances, step mother can also claim maintenance from step sons. Similar question fails for consideration before the Supreme Court in a case reported in 1996(4) SCC 479 (Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat and another). The Hon’ble apex court in paragraph-15 of the judgment has held as follows : 2 “15. The point in controversy before us however is whether a ‘stepmother’ can claim maintenance from the stepson or not, having regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. Having regard to this special object the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the legislature. Consequently, to achieve this objective, in our opinion, a childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of 3 supporting and maintaining her. The obligation of the son to maintain his father, who is unable to maintain himself, is unquestionable. When she claims maintenance from her natural born children, she does so in her status as their ‘mother’. Such an interpretation would be in accord with the explanation attached to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 because to exclude altogether the personal law applicable to the parties from consideration in matters of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code may not be wholly justified. However, no intention of legislature can be read in Section 125 of the Code that even though a mother has her real and natural born son or sons and a husband capable of maintaining her, she could still proceed against her stepson to claim maintenance. Since, in this case we are not concerned with, we express no opinion, on the question of liability, if any, of the stepson to maintain the stepmother, out of the inherited family estate by the stepson and leave that question to be decided in an appropriate case. Our discussion is confined to the obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only.” The other point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not the only son. Apart from the petitioner, there are other step sons and therefore the petitioner alone cannot be forced to pay 4 N.H./ maintenance. In view of the provisions contained in section 125 Cr.P.C. , it appears to me that parents can claim maintenance from all or anyone of their children. There is no bar. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )