Smt. Pancharanti vs Swami Nath and Others

P.N. Bakshi, J.—Smt. Pancharanti is widow of Ram Kishan. She had three children, Swami Nath, Ram Deo and Shyam Narain--Ram Deo and Shyam Narain were minors. After the death of Ram Kishan, it appears that there was some quarrel between the members of the family and the sons turned out their mother from their residential house after beating her. Smt. Pancharanti, thereafter came to live with her sister in village Baheliapur. The application was filed on her behalf u/s 125 claiming maintenance allowance for herself. In her application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure details of the landed property left by the deceased Ram Kishan which has been inherited by the family has been mentioned. It has also been mentioned therein that it is with the greatest difficulty that Smt. Pancharanti can maintain herself by doing Kutni and Pisni. She has claimed Rs. 100/- as maintenance. The Opposite Party, who admittedly are the sons of Ram Kishan denied that Smt. Pancharanti was their mother. They also denied their liability to maintain her. On a consideration of the evidence on the record, the trial court came to the conclusion that Smt. Pancharanti "as the wife of Ram Kishan and mother of the Opposite Parties. It also came to the conclusion that Ram Deo and Shyam Narain being minors could not be held liable to maintain their mother. It also came to the conclusion that the Opposite Party No. 1, i.e. Swami Nath has got his own family to support and therefore, he cannot alone be held liable for the payment of maintenance to his mother, since the other two sons were minors. Aggrieved thereby Smt. Pancharanti filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed on 11th January, 1979. Hence this revision, u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order and the affidavit on the record. The order of the Sessions Judge does not appear to be correct. He is labouring under a misapprehension that Ram Kishan had four sons, of whom three were minors. The factual position admittedly is that Ram Kishan had only 3 sons of whom only two are minors and Swami Nath is a major. The Sessions Judge has also come to the conclusion that the application filed by Smt. Pancharanti u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable because she has not alleged that she is unable to maintain herself. This does not appear to be correct on a fair appreciation of the pleadings of the parties. In her application Smt. Pancharanti has mentioned that she has been drived out of the residential house after being beaten by his sons and that she is residing with her sister and that somehow or the other she is trying to keep body and soul together by doing Kutni and Pisni. These allegations clearly refer to the helpless condition of the lady who has been driven out by her unworthy children from the residential house, after giving her a beating. In her statement (annexure II) she has again specifically mentioned that her only support is her sons and she has no other means of subsistance. In my opinion these allegations and statements are sufficient compliance of the law to lead to an inference that Smt. Pancharanti is unable to maintain herself. On this ground, therefore, the Sessions Judge has erred in law in rejecting her application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court was also in error in refusing maintenance to Smt. Pancharanti on the ground that the major son has got his own family to support. u/s 125(d) Code of Criminal Procedure a liability is cast upon the children to maintain their parents, father and mother, who are unable to maintain themselves. There is no denial of the fact that Swami Nath is an able bodied person. He is, therefore, legally bound to maintain his mother. In the instant case, however, I find that he has inherited the property from his deceased father in which legitimately Smt. Pancharanti Opposite Party would have a share, as such even in equity Swami Nath cannot be absolved of his responsibility to maintain his mother u/s 125(d) Code of Criminal Procedure.

Her application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure should, therefore, be allowed. The denial by the sons that Smt. Pancharanti was not their mother was patently false. The material on the record, which has been placed before me indicates that in the family, as at present Swami Nath is living with his two minor brothers. The daughters Chandrawati and Shanti have been already married. Smt. Ramrati, whom Shyam Narain, the second son has recently married is still at her parent''s place since her gavana has not been performed. Smt. Daulatiya his aunt is not living with the family. Even if she was, u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure the sons are bound to maintain their mother but not their aunt. Thus balancing the equities in the case and including Smt. Pancharanti the mother, there would be five persons --the responsibility can be placed upon the major son Swami Nath namely Swami nath himself his two minor brothers, his wife and his mother.

Counsel for the parties have also placed the material before me with regard to the income of the family of Swaminath. According to one version, the income is 2,000/- rupees, and according to another it is 4,000/- rupees. Of course Smt. Pancharanti has alleged that the income of the family was Rs. 10,000/-, but even if the allegation of Smt. Pancharanti in this regard is ignored or rejected, it would be fair and reasonable to assess the income of the family by taking the average of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- i.e. a sum of Rs. 3,000/- annually. Five persons of the family have to be supported in this sum. Thus in view of justice and equity, an amount of Rs. 50/- per month, totalling a sum of Rs. 600/-annually can be safely determined as the maintenance allowance payable to Smt. Pancharanti widow of Ram Kishan.

Having regard to all the material on record, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair to award a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month of Smt. Pancharanti, which shall be paid by Swaminath, the major son of Smt. Pancharanti. This amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month shall be payable by Swaminath with effect from 1st April, 1980. First instalment shall be paid by 20th of this month, and subsequent instalments shall be paid by 7th of each succeeding month.

This application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed and Swami-nath is directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month. A copy of the order shall be given to the applicant within 8 days from today.