Ambili v. Sarojini and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2017/19TH ASHADHA, 1939** **Crl.MC.No. 160 of 2017 () --------------------------** ## **C.M.P.NO.323/2016 IN M.C.NO.303/2015 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:** **-------------------------------------------** **AMBILI, D/O.SAKUNTHALA,EDAKKOLLA VAZHINJI VEEDU, ARUMANOOR, NEYYATTINKARA** **BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER & STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. SAROJINI, W/O.VASUDEVAN, VASUMATHI VEEDU, ALTHARA JUNCTION, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 160 of 2017 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**-----------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE A**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.3.2015 PASSED BY**| ||**THE COMMANDER/STAFF OFFICER(PENSION), NAVAL PENSION**| ||**OFFICE**| |**ANNEXURE B**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 9.3.2013 PASSED BY THE LOK**| ||**ADALAT**| |**ANNEXURE C**|<br>**COPY OF M.C.NO.303/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT**| ||**BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED**| ||**16.9.2015**| |**ANNEXURE D**|<br>**COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN M.C.NO.303/2015 FILED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 8.3.2016**| |**ANNEXURE E**|<br>**COPY OF THE PETITION M.P.NO.323/2016 IN**| ||**M.C.NO.303/2015 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 8.3.2016**| |**ANNEXURE F**|<br>**COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.323/2016 IN**| ||**M.C.NO.303/2015 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 15.11.2016.**| ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **STK** ## **“C.R.”** ## **B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.160 of 2017 ----------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of July, 2017 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein is the petitioner in C.M.P.No.323/2016 in M.C.No.303/2015 on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent herein filed M.C.No.303/2015 before the court below, praying for maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of the first respondent herein. 2. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioner herein filed C.M.P.No.323/2016, praying for passing an order with regard to the maintainability of the said M.C. The court below as per order dated 15.11.2016 dismissed the said petition. 3. Heard. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the first ## **Crl.M.C. No.160 of 2017** ## **-: 2 :-** respondent, the first respondent is not having the status as the mother of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, she is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. 5. It will be profitable at this juncture to refer to the provisions of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C, which is extracted hereunder:- “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. -(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a)his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b)his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c)his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d)his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, ## **Crl.M.C. No.160 of 2017** ## **-: 3 :-** 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, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceedings regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Chapter,- ## **Crl.M.C. No.160 of 2017** ## **-: 4 :-** (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority; (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.” 6. It is clear from the provisions of Section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C. that if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his father or mother unable to maintain himself or herself, that person is liable to pay maintenance to such father or mother under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The first respondent herein is not the mother but the mother-in-law of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the mother-in-law can be considered as the mother for the purpose of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., because the daughter-in-law had received the entire benefit of the service of the son of the first respondent as he died while he was in service. ## **Crl.M.C. No.160 of 2017** ## **-: 5 :-** 8. It is clear from Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. that the words used in the said Section are clear and unambiguous. It is settled law that once the words used in the statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for the court to interpret differently. There cannot be any ambiguity that Section 125(1) includes only the father and the mother and not the mother-in-law or the father-in-law. 9. The Apex Court in Kirtikanth D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and Another [(1996) 4 SCC 479] held that the expression, 'mother' clearly means only the natural mother who has given birth to the child and not the one, who is the wife of one's father by another marriage. It is clear from the above interpretation by the Apex Court that the meaning of the word mother is the biological mother and the said word cannot be used to include mother-in-law. 10. It is clear from the above discussion that the expression 'mother' used in Section 125 Cr.P.C denotes the biological mother and not the mother-in-law or the step- **-: 6 :-** ## **Crl.M.C. No.160 of 2017** mother. Therefore, the mother-in-law is not entitled to get maintenance from the daughter-in-law under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. For the said reason, it is clear that M.C.No.303/2015 filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner herein cannot be sustained and consequently, the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the court below in C.M.P. No.323/2016 in M.C.No.303/2015 stands quashed and this Crl.M.C. stands allowed, holding that M.C.No.303/2015 filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner is not maintainable. Consequently, the further proceedings in M.C.No.303/2015 stand quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed as above. Sd/- **B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** STK //TRUE COPY// //P.A. TO JUDGE//