Allahabad HC: Woman Can't Claim Maintenance From Step-Son After Relief From Real Son

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a mother who has already been granted maintenance from her biological son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot subsequently seek maintenance from her step-son. The court observed that once a claimant is receiving maintenance from a legally liable person and is no longer unable to maintain herself, a further maintenance order against another individual is not warranted under the same circumstances.

Justice Laxmi Kant Shukla, while delivering the judgment on Tuesday, held that the purpose of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is to provide financial support to a person who is unable to maintain themselves. The court said that after a mother has been awarded maintenance by her real son, she ceases to fall within the category of a person incapable of self-maintenance for the purpose of seeking an additional maintenance order against her step-son.

The High Court, however, clarified that where more than one person is legally obligated to maintain an applicant and the claimant approaches the court before any maintenance order is passed, it is the responsibility of the court to determine who should pay maintenance and in what proportion. The observation indicates that liability can be apportioned among eligible persons depending on the facts of each case before a final maintenance order is issued.

Also Read: Allahabad HC Rejects Plea Seeking ASI Survey Of Taj Mahal Over ‘Tejo Mahalaya’ Claim

The judgment came while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a woman seeking modification of a Family Court order. The Family Court had directed her biological son to pay her maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month but did not impose any financial liability on her step-son. The woman challenged the order, contending that both sons should have been directed to contribute towards her maintenance.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court had erred by placing the entire responsibility on the biological son while exempting the step-son from any obligation. On the other hand, counsel representing the state and the step-son submitted that since the biological son had sufficient financial means and had already been directed to support his mother, there was no legal basis for imposing an additional maintenance obligation on the step-son.

The ruling provides further judicial clarity on the interpretation of maintenance provisions under Section 125 of the CrPC in cases involving biological and stepchildren. While reaffirming that courts may apportion maintenance among multiple legally responsible persons when appropriate, the High Court held that once adequate maintenance has already been awarded and the claimant is no longer unable to maintain themselves, a subsequent claim against another person cannot ordinarily be sustained.

Also Read: Why Do Parents In Japan Disappear With Their Own Children?