Mother in law is not entitled to claim maintenance from daughter in law

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND,MEGHALAYA,
MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
AGARTALA BENCH

CRL. REV. P. No. 101 of 2009

Smt. Kanan Bala Choudhury,

- Vs –
1. Smt. Kabita Das (Choudhury),

Delivery of : 28.03.2012.
Citation ; 2013 (2)Crimes 106 (Gauhati)
In this proceeding, the order dated 25.08.2009, passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc. Case
No. 227 of 2009 has been challenged. By the aforesaid order, the
learned Judge, Family Court held that maintenance sought for by the
petitioner herein Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
in her capacity as
the
mother in law of the opposite party therein is not maintainable.
2.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order,
the petitioner has come up with this revision petition contending that
order dated 25.08.2009 in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009 is illegal and
without any basis and it causes her enormous injustice.

3.
The facts, leading to the Misc. Case aforesaid, in short, are
that the respondent No. 1 herein, is the wife of one Sunil Chandra
Choudhury,
a
Government
employee,
working
in
the
Power
Department, Government of Tripura. However, said Sunil Chandra
Choudhury died on 20.07.2005 while he was in service. Owing to
death of said Sunil Chandra Choudhury, his wife, Smt. Kabita
Choudhury got a job in the Department of her deceased husband
under die in harness scheme.
4.
Said Sunil Chandra Choudhury left behind his wife, one son
and daughter, his widow mother and two unmarried sisters as his
P/3
heirs. However, after getting the job, the respondent No. 1 herein
started living separately and did not pay anything either to her poor
widow mother-in-law or her unmarried sisters-in-law, which put them
in between the deep sea and devil. Having found no other way, the
petitioner approached learned Judge, Family Court with an application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance allowance from her
daughter-in-law, as, she, in spite of having sufficient means, did not
maintain her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, who were unable to
maintain themselves.
5.
The learned Family Court after hearing the parties came to
the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner, Smt. Kanan
Bala Choudhury, is not maintainable since under the scheme as
arranged in Section U/s125 Cr.PC, mother-in-law cannot claim
maintenance from her daughter-in-law despite latter getting a job
under die-in-harness scheme on the death of her husband and
accordingly, vide order dated 25.08.2009 passed in Misc. Case No.
227 of 2009,
the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the said
petition being not maintainable one.
6.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dated
25.08.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009, the petitioner has
now come up with the present petition alleging that learned Trial Court
by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 227 of 2009
has not only defied the dictum of law, so incorporated in Section 125
Cr.P.C. but also caused profound injustice to the petitioner, a poor,

hapless and wretched woman for whose benefit and assistance, the
legislature enacted such a beneficial legislation---argues Mr. S. Saha,
learned counsel, appearing for the revision-petitioner .
7.
It has further been contended that learned Trial Court
committed grave error of law by not appreciating the fact that the
term ‘Mother’ as used in Section 125 Cr.P.C. very well covers a
mother-in-law as well and, as such , it is well within her right to claim
maintenance from her daughter in law
on invoking
aforesaid
provision of law. However, by refusing to grant her such maintaince,
the learned Judge perpetuated huge injustice on the petitioner herein.
8.
Injustice done to her due to such refusal becomes more
explicit, more clear for the reason that the respondent No. 1 herein
(the opposite party in misc. case No. 227 of 2009 under Section 125
Cr.P.C.) got the job under die in harness scheme only on the death of
her husband, who being her son, maintained his mother and
unmarried sisters while he was alive. Being so, on her getting a job
under die in harness scheme, the respondent No. 1 herein is duty
bound to maintain not only the petitioner but her unmarried daughters
as well.
9.
The opposite party entered appearance and contested the
proceeding. Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No 1, has vehemently contended that a plain reading of
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. clearly shows that in spite of such a
legislation being a beneficial social legislation, the term ‘mother’ as

used in Section 125 of the Cr.PC cannot be stretched to cover a
‘mother-in-law’ enabling her (a mother-in-law) to claim maintenance
from her daughter-in-law as well since the proposition so put forward
by
the petitioner is totally
incompatible with the
scheme of the
legislation, under consideration, more important such a proposition,
if accepted, would cause unfathomable damages to the various social
fabrics which bind the society .
10.
In that context, Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has
argued that the words ‘employed’ in Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly
the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are so explicit, so un-ambiguous and
so clear that a Court is not entitled to add anything thereto or delete
something there-from in interpreting such words incorporated in such
a statute. In that connexion my attention has drawn to the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vrs.
Tulsiram patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398.
11.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of
India v. Tulsiram Patel (supra) held as follows:
“70. The position which emerges from the above discussion is that the
keywords of the second proviso govern each and every clause of that
proviso and leave no scope for any kind of opportunity to be given to a
government servants. The phrase "this clause shall not apply" is
mandatory and not directory. It is in the nature of a Constitutional
prohibitory injunction restraining the disciplinary authority from
holding an inquiry under Article 311(2) or front giving any kind of
opportunity to the concerned government servant. There is thus no
scope for introducing into the second proviso some kind of inquiry or
opportunity by a process of inference or implication. The maxim
"expressum facit cessare tacitum" ("when there is express mention of
certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded") applies to the
case. As pointed out by this Court in B. Shankara Rao Badam and Ors.
v. State of Mysore and Anr. : [1969] 3 SCR 1 : 12, this well-known

maxim is a principle of logic and common sense and not merely a
technical rule of construction. The second proviso expressly mentions
that Clause (2) shall not apply where one of the clauses of that proviso
becomes applicable. This express mention excludes everything that
Clause (2) contains and there can be no scope for once again
introducing the opportunities provided by Clause (2) or any one of them
into the second proviso.):”
12.
It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1 that even if one assumes for the sake of argument
for a moment that the term ‘mother’ is wide enough to include mother
in law as well -- even then---- the respondent No. 1 is not bound to
maintain her mother in law inasmuch as that the later is not such a
woman who is unable to maintain herself. Quite contrary to it, she is a
wealthy woman having enormous landed property which she has sold
from time to time to meet her various requirements.
13.
These apart, the petitioner has one more son as well who
earns sufficient money every month and who maintains her mother
too. I have also heard similar arguments advanced by R.C. Debnath,
learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State of Tripura
who also echoed the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1. For all those reasons, the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1 as well as the counsel for state respondent have
urged this court to dismiss the proceeding instead.
14.
Above being the stances, taken on the point as to whether
or not ‘mother- in- law’ also includes within the meaning of the term
‘mother’ as used in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, let me consider whose
argument stands to reason in view of the arrangement of things as

has been done in the Section aforesaid
and for this purpose, I find it
necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., which
runs as follows:
“Chapter IX-
Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents
(emphasis supplied by me).
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children
and parents (emphasis supplied by me) – (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, 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 proceeding 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–
(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.”
15.
On perusal of provisions Section 125 Cr.P.C, in between
the lines, I have found that the legislature intended that certain words
employed therein, such as, the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are to
convey their common or generic meaning only and therefore, they
need to be read and understood in that sense only. Such an
interpretation is also found to be in tune with aim and objective of the
legislation for which such an enactment was brought into existence. ‘
16.
Any other interpretation of the term ‘mother’ and ‘father’ or
an interpretation in the line as desired by the petitioner herein would
not only defeat the very purpose of the enactment aforesaid but it
would also cause havoc to the society by destroying the very fabric on
which society survives.
Thus, in my considered view, the words
‘mother’ and ‘father’ ---as has been used in Section 125 Cr.P.C -----
carry a meaning and connotation in which they are usually and
normally understood.

17.
Before we proceed further let us see how the words
mother’ and ‘father’ are defined in the dictionary. According to Oxford
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, ‘mother’ means “a female parent of a
child or animal; a person who is acting as a mother to a child’’. On the
other hand, the term ‘father’ ---according to aforesaid Dictionary--
means “a male parent of a child or animal; a person who is acting as a
father to a child”. In respect of aforesaid terms, similar view has been
expressed in Chambers Twentieth Century dictionary as well.
18.
In this context, it becomes also necessary to know the
Dictionary of meaning of a term ‘parents’ as well since in the heading
of Chapter-IX as well as in its sub-heading, the legislature have also
employed the words ‘parents’ along with the term ‘wives’ and ‘children’
as pointed out above. The dictionary aforesaid has described the word,
‘parent’ as one “a person’s father or mother”.
The term ‘mother’ or
‘father’ when consider alongside the term ‘parent’, there cannot be
any escaped from conclusion that the word mother or father as has
been used in Section 125 Cr.P.C, means only natural father or natural
mother and none else.
19.
The above proposition of mine also becomes more evident,
more clear from the fact that whenever the legislature intended that
certain words used in Section 125 Cr.P.C should to carry a meaning
something different from its normal connotation/ meaning or that they
are to be understood in a particular manner, then, it takes all the pain
to specifically define such words so that those word(s) are understood

and meant only in the sense in
which legislature intended to read
such words.
20.
Legislatures, in their wisdom, therefore, find it necessary to
give a little extended meaning to the term ‘wife’. It also believes that
term ‘minor’ as used in aforesaid Section are to be understood in a
particular way only and which is why the legislatures define/describe
those two words as well. Being so, a woman who was divorced, or who
obtained a divorce and who is not
remarried becomes a wife for the
purposes of section 125 of the CrPC. Again, a person who has not
attained his majority according to the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of
1875) will also be deemed to a “minor” as far as Section 125 Crpc is
concerned.
21.
Had legislatures in their wisdom intended to give an
extended meaning to the word ‘mother’ and ‘father’ as well so as to
include mother-in-law as well as father-in-law within the term ‘mother’
and ‘father’ respectively, it could have easily done the same by making
necessary arrangement in that Section itself as has been done in case
of wife and minor. But same was not done which is forceful testimony
to the fact that in enacting Section 125 of the Cr.P.C , the legislatures
never /ever intended to include mother-in-law
within the term of
‘mother’ or for that matter father-in-law within the term ‘father so
used in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
22.
Here it is worth noting that as stated above , a bare perusal
of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, clearly reveals that in enacting such a

provision of law, legislatures employed some words, such as, ‘mother’
and ‘father in its most pure, pristine, and unadulterated version and as
such, those words cannot be interpreted to have conveyed any
meaning other than what they normally and usually carry, more so,
when such words are not at all susceptible to the charge that carry or
convey meaning more than one.
23.
It is a well known principle of interpretation that when the
word(s) employed by a particular legislation is plain, clear and un-
ambiguous, the Court is not entitled to delete anything there-from or
to add something thereto and such a interpretation is founded on the
maxim "expressum facit cessare tacitum" ("when there is express
mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded").
24.
Such a principle has always followed by the Courts in India
and also been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India
v. Tulsiram Patel (supra) . Thus, I have no difficulty in coming to the
conclusion that the word mother does not includes within its bound the
word ‘mother’ as so far as Section 125 of the Cr.PC in concerned and
the petitioner--- not being a mother within the meaning of the mother
as understood in Section 125 Cr.P.C--- cannot claim maintenance
under the aforesaid provision of law.
25.
In this connexion, learned counsel for the petitioner has
also referred me to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the
case of Subhaschandra vs. Indubai reported in (2004) 2 Crimes

(HC) where Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had the occasion to consider
and interpret the term daughter and child in order to see if the word
daughter also includes daughter-in-law enabling the later to claim
maintenance from her father-in-law. On considering various provisions
involved therein the Karnataka High Court held as follows:
“9. So, even when the said interpretations made are kept in mind and
considered the said provision of law, it cannot be said that a daughter-in-
law or grandson is covered by the said provision so as to say that the
present respondents could be awarded maintenance from the petitioner
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. To interpret that the word "daughter"
includes "daughter-in-law" or the word "child" includes "grandchildren"
(son includes grandson) or the word "father" includes "grandfather" or
"father-in-law" will be doing harm to the said words, more so, when
persons for whom the said provision is provided is kept in mind. No
authority or law has been brought to my notice so as to interpret and hold
that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. covers the case of daughter-in-law against
father-in-law or the case of a grandson against grandfather. This can be
said even on a plain reading of the said provision contained in Section 125
of the Cr.P.C. It need not be said that nothing can be added or deleted
while interpreting a statute.”
26.
Here, we may also gainfully refer the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs.
State of Gujarat and another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479. In
the case aforementioned Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was required
to consider if the word ‘step mother’ also includes in the term ‘mother’
and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kirtikant D.
Vadodaria (supra) held as follows :-
“11. Admittedly, the expressions "mother" and "step-mother" have not
been defined either in the Code or in the General Clauses Act, 1897.
These expressions have also not been defined by the Hindu Law or the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or by any other Law. As
stated earlier, all that the explanation attached to Section 20 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides is that the expression
"parent" includes a childless step-mother. This being the position, we
have to resort to the dictionary meaning and the meaning in which these
expressions are commonly understood in the popular sense. In the

Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases. Volume 27A, at page 348, the
word "mother" has been given the meaning 'to denote a woman who has
borne a child or a female parent, especially one of the human race.’ In
Volume 40 of the said permanent Edition of WORDS AND PHRASES, at
page 145, the expression "step-mother" has been given the meaning as to
be the wife of one's father by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of
which the person spoken of is the offspring. It has been further stated that
a "step-mother" is a relative by affinity and the relationship continues
after the death of the father. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Edition, at
page 913, has given the meaning of "mother" as 'a woman who has borne
a child', a 'female parent'. Further, at page 1268, the meaning of "step-
mother" is stated to mean the wife of one's father by virtue of a marriage
subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring'.
Similarly, in THE SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Volume
II, at page 1360, the meaning of the word "mother" is given as 'a woman
who has given birth to a child or a female parent' and at page 2122, the
expression "step-mother" has been assigned the meaning as 'The wife of
one's father by a subsequent marriage'. According to Webster Dictionary
(International Edition), the expression "mother" means a female parent
and that which has produced or given birth to anyone. Thus, on a
conspectus view of dictionary meaning of the two expressions -
"mother" and "step-mother" in various dictionaries, it clearly emerges
that there is inherent distinction between the status of a 'mother' and
'step-mother' and they are two distinct and separate entities and both
could not be assigned the same meaning. 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.”
27.
The above decisions have further demonstrated that the
words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ mean natural father and mother only and
as such those words cannot be stretched to include mother in law or
father in law as well and the petitioner herein as being mother in law
of the respondent No. 1, therefore, cannot claim a benefit, so made
available under a provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C, she not being
natural mother of the respondent in proceedings aforesaid. Being so, I
have found no infirmity whatsoever in the order impugned dismissing
the petition filed by petitioner herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

28.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
respondent No. 1 had got the job under die-in-harness scheme on the
death of her husband, who is the son of the petitioner. It has also
been submitted that before being appointed under the aforesaid
scheme, she undertook to maintain her mother-in-law as well as her
daughter-in-law.
However,
she
did
not
honour
the
aforesaid
undertaking. This itself is a ground enabling the petitioner to claim
maintenance from her daughter-in-law.
29.
We have already decidedly found that the petitioner
cannot claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law on invoking the
provisions recorded in 125 Cr.P.C. and as such, her petition is not
maintainable. This needs no further deliberation here. However, if she
has any claim under the scheme aforesaid, under which she got the
job, the petitioner can
agitate same, if so advised, in appropriate
forum.
30.
The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has further
contended that petitioner herein, being a woman having sufficient
means of earning, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. ---even if----- one assumes for a moment that the case of the
petitioner is covered by Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, in view of
foregoing discussions, such a contention is found redundant and as
such, the same is not at all taken up for consideration.
31. In view of above, the petition is rejected.
32. L.C.R.be returned immediately.

33.
The Misc. proceeding is disposed of, however, without any
cost.