N.N.Sharma - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 14-4-1981 by II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi Sri Vishwanath Sharan Tripathi, by which he allowed maintenance application of opposite party no. 1 for recovery of maintenance and arrears of maintenance from 11-4-1979 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month from revisionist and Rs. 50/- per month from opposite party no. 2. The arrears of maintenance were payable to opposite party no. 1 Damyanti at the aforesaid rate at their convenience onwards.
(2.) THE findings of fact recorded by the learned Munsif were not assailable before me in this revision on behalf of the parties. Revisionist Sarju Prasad and opposite party no. 2 Ram Dayal are sons of Har Prasad deceased who was an employee of Railway department in Jhansi and met his death as he was involved in some accident. Sarju Prasad and Ram Dayal were born of Smt. Dhanwati first wife of Har Prasad while Smt. Damyanti is the second wife of Har Prasad who had no issue. She is living in the ancestral house and claimed maintenance on the ground that she had not sufficient means to make her ends meet. Despite service of notice of demand no amount was paid to her by her step sons. Revisionist denied that Smt. Damyanti was his step mother and legally wedded wife of Har Prasad but his own brother opposite party no. 2 conceded this fact. Learned Munsif Magistrate held that the widow was entitled to the maintenance as she had no sufficient means to maintain herself with the present resources at her disposal. Learned counsel for the revisionist attacked the judgment on the ground that it was not open to the learned trial court to award future maintenance. However, this point is concluded by the findings of fact recorded by learned Munsif-Magistrate who held that the present means at the disposal of Smt. Damyanti were insufficient to make her both ends meet. In these hard days so this point is rejected out right, as there is nothing illegal in the impugned order which is sustainable by oral and documentary evidence on record.
(3.) THE sole point which was mainly canvassed before me on behalf of the revisionist was that Smt. Damyanti being the step mother of Sarju Prasad was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125, CrPC. Section 125, sub-clause (1) (d), CrPC which casts such an obligation on the son reads:- "125. (1) (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct." So the words "his mother" includes natural mother and not step mother. THE right of the step mother in the coparcenery property does not justify her claim under section 125, CrPC. It was for this reason that no explanation was appended in this Section (to show that even a step mother is included within the connotation of mother. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that when the step sons were children they were brought up by Smt. Damayanti Devi during their infancy. It shall operate harshly on the step mother if they are absolved from statutory duty to maintain even their step mother who is unable to maintain herself. The object of the legislature as enacted under Section 125, CrPC was to prevent vagrancy and destitution.;