Allahabad High Court has made a big comment. The court has clearly said that if a mother is getting maintenance from her real son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), then she cannot later demand maintenance from her step son also. With this comment, the court rejected the criminal revision petition filed by a woman. Let us know what is the whole matter.
Actually, this case was related to the criminal revision petition filed by a woman. Last year, on May 15, 2025, the family court had ordered the woman’s real son to pay maintenance of Rs 8,000 every month to his mother. However, the woman was not satisfied with this decision. After this the woman approached the High Court. She argued that her stepson should also be held equally responsible for providing maintenance as he was also the son of her late husband.
what did the court say
In the order passed on Tuesday (July 14), Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla said that after getting maintenance allowance from her own son, the mother cannot be considered incapable of maintaining herself, in such a situation she is no longer eligible to get maintenance allowance from any other person. However, the court also made it clear that if two or more persons are responsible for the maintenance of a person and he approaches the court, then it will be the duty of the court to decide according to the circumstances as to whom and how much amount should be given as maintenance.
Criminal revision petition dismissed
With these comments the court rejected the criminal revision petition of a woman. The woman had requested to amend the order of the family court and requested for maintenance allowance from her step son also. The family court had ordered to pay alimony of Rs 8,000 per month to the woman’s real son.
woman’s argument
The woman said that the family court hastily put the entire responsibility of maintenance on her own son and freed her step son from this responsibility. In the court, the woman’s lawyer argued that both the sons should have been held responsible for paying maintenance.
Step son protested
Opposing the petition, the state government and the step son said that when the woman’s real son is present and an order has already been given to pay him maintenance, then the step son cannot be held responsible for this responsibility. The step son argued that where the woman’s own son, who had sufficient resources, was already maintaining her, there was no legal obligation to impose the same responsibility on the step son.
Finding no legal merit in the woman’s petition, the High Court held that the revision petition was filed without any solid legal basis and its purpose was only to harass the step son.
Leave a Reply