PITEI BEWA Vs. LAXMIDHAR JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the third wife of late Nari Jena and opposite parties 1 and 2 are the sons of Nari Jena through his second wife. After the death of Nari Jena as opposite parties neglected the petitioner and her two minor daughters, they filed an application under S.125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. It was asserted in their petition that petitioner's husband Nari Jena had left some landed property which had been cultivated by the opposite parties and further opposite party No.1 was an assistant in the office of the Inspector of Schools. The opposite parties in their objection asserted that the petitioner was not the wife of Nari Jena and further she was not unable to maintain, herself. It was also averred by them that some of the lands of Nari Jena had been given to the petitioner for her maintenance and, therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance from them. The learned Magistrate came to hold that the petitioner was the wife of Nari Jena and step-mother of the opposite parties. He further found that the petitioner was unable to maintain herself as she was not in possession of any landed property left by Nari Jena. The learned Magistrate then recorded a finding that the opposite parties have sufficient means and are neglecting the petitioner. Ultimately he directed the opposite parties to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 70/- to the petitioner and so far the two minor daughters are concerned, the learned Magistrate held that the daughters were not entitled to maintenance.

(2.) The opposite parties carried a revision before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No.156 of 1981 and the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the word "mother" occurring in Cl.(d) of S.125(1) of the Cr.P.C. did not include a step-mother and, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to be maintained by her step sons. On this finding, he allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) Mr. Sahoo appearing for the petitioner contends that the word "mother" occurring in Cl.(d) of S.125(1) of the Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") includes a "stepmother" and keeping in view that object of the provisions of the Code, there is no reason to exclude a step-mother from her right to be maintained by her step sons from out of the assets of her late husband. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, submits that in view of the language used in Cl.(d) of S.125(1), namely, "his father or mother", it obviously refers to the natural parents of the person on whom the liability to maintain is being fastened and would not include any woman whom his father had married. The rival contentions require careful examination of the provisions of S.125(1)(d) of the Code.