The Karnataka High Court has held that a stepmother can claim maintenance from legal heirs of her deceased husband, provided she proves, by way of evidence that her husband was in possession of a substantial number of properties and they were extracting income from them.
The single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan in this view partly allowed a petition filed by step-children seeking to set aside and modify the order passed by the family court granting ₹25,000/month maintenance to their stepmother.
It was the contention of the Learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the order under challenge is not sustainable under the law. He submitted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C is not applicable to the respondent as she was a stepmother which is not covered under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for granting maintenance under the Special Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and as per the Section 9(2) of the maintenance payable is maximum of Rs.10,000/-, therefore in order to avoid less payment the respondent has filed this petition by suppressing the main facts and also contended that the said Act came into force in the year 2007, therefore she has to approach the Deputy Commissioner for the relief.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioners are having landed properties, businesses, and a huge income, therefore, they have to pay the maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month as per ordered by the Family Court.
On contention that stepmother is not covered under section 125 of Cr.P.C as she was not a natural/biological mother, the Court cited SC Ruling in Kirikand D.Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and Anr. wherein one similar appeal against the maintenance order was allowed based on the fact that the stepmother was acting to harass the step-children.
It also went on to mention the view taken by the co-ordinate bench of the Court that even the stepmother can claim maintenance from the income of the property of her husband when she is incapable of supporting herself.
The Court also took into consideration section 9 (1)(2), of the Senior Citizens Act, wherein the maximum limit for granting maintenance is Rs.10,000/ and as per section 2 (d) of the definition in the said act, "parents means, father or mother whether biological, adoptive, or step father or step mother as the case may be whether or not the father or mother of the senior citizen".
The Court thus accordingly ruled:
"The definition of step mother is not defined under section 125 of Cr.p.C whether and not included in the definition of mother whereas the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizen Act, 2007, covers the step mother in the definition. Such being the case, the petitioner requires to approach the tribunal under the Special Act for claiming maintenance. However, as per the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in Ullappa's case stated supra has held, as there are huge properties held by the husband of the step mother of this petitioners and they are having income, therefore, the step-mother is also entitled for the maintenance."
It was of the view that considering the circumstances of the case the order of granting maintenance of Rs.25,000/- by the Family Court as interim maintenance is not sustainable and the matter is required for evidence to be recorded, documents to be marked by the petitioner/stepmother in order to show her husband is having lot of properties and they are having income.
"Though the respondent is receiving rent of Rs.4,000/- but she is having divorced daughter and grand daughter, therefore, the petitioner requires to agitate the same before the Family Court and also she can claim maintenance in the Senior Citizen Act. Such being the case, granting Rs.25000/- per month without recording the evidence is not sustainable. Therefore the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and modified."
Accordingly, the Court observed that the petitioners step mother is entitled for Rs.10,000/- per month until the disposal of the case of the trial court. The family court was thus directed to record the evidence of the parties and decide the issue and dispose of the matter in accordance with the law, by taking into the note of Senior Citizen Act and section 125 of Cr.P.C by keeping the judgment of the supreme court and the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court while disposing of the matter.
CASE TITLE: MR KHALEEL UL REHMAN and ORS. vs SHARAFFUNNISA MUNIRI @ ASHRAF UNNISA
CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8508 OF 2022
CORAM: Justice K Natarajan
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments