MINOR BINABEN ARVINDKUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. RANJANBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule has bacon issued earlier in response to which both the sides as well as on behalf of the original opponent Advocates have appeared. Mr. S. M. Vora represents the original-opponent who is respondent No. 1 herein. On behalf of minor daughters an application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. came to be filed in the Court of JMFC Ahmedabad (Rural) praying for maintenance. The learned JMFC was of the view that Section 125 does not provide for an order of maintenance being passed against the mother of the children and hence he discharged the notice.

(2.) This order of the learned Magistrate is wholly misconceived because he has concentrated only on the fact that pronoun He has been used. He has totally lost the sight of the fact that in the beginning of the section itself the liability is imposed upon any person who neglects to maintain. Below that are the categories of person who are entitled to maintenance from the aforesaid any person. Now the legitimate children are one of the such categories and the minor applicants before the trial Court being the children of the opponent-mother and the mother being herself earning she would certainly be answerable for the purpose and the amount may be fixed according to the facts and circumstances of the case but it is not correct for the learned Magistrate to say that Section 125 does not contemplate a liability of the mother to maintain her children.

(3.) It is an accepted position under the respective General Clauses Act that wherever he is used it shall include she. In other words if there is any reference in a statutory provision to a living person by using the pronoun he which indicates in ordinary grammar masculine it shall also cover she which under the grammar would be a feminine. In any way reference to he is not be restricted only to man but is also to be understood a reference to she i.e. a woman.