Step-Mother Cannot Claim Maintenance from Step-Son When Real Son With Sufficient Means Is Providing Maintenance

The revisionist, Smt. Kusum, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from her real son (Opposite Party No. 3) and her stepson (Opposite Party No. 2).

The Trial Court (Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar) vide order dated 15.05.2025, directed the real son to pay ₹8,000 per month but discharged the stepson from any liability.

The revisionist challenged this order, seeking to fasten equal liability upon the stepson.

The respondents contended that in the presence of a real son with sufficient means, a stepson cannot be held liable.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain their parents if they are unable to maintain themselves.

Maintenance is a welfare provision intended to prevent destitution; the claimant must prove both the "neglect or refusal" by the respondent and their own "inability to maintain themselves".

The court also applied the principle that it is within the Court's discretion to determine the ratio and the specific person from whom maintenance is payable when multiple potential obligors exist.

The Court reasoned that the primary requirement for a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is the claimant's inability to maintain herself. In this case, while the revisionist might have been unable to maintain herself at the time of filing, the Trial Court’s order directing the real son to pay ₹8,000 per month—an order he accepted—effectively ended her status of "incapability".

The High Court observed that once a person receives sufficient maintenance by a court order, they cannot claim additional maintenance from another relative for the same purpose.

the court found that the law allows the Magistrate to decide which person should pay the allowance and in what proportion. The Court concluded that seeking further maintenance from the stepson while already being supported by the real son lacked substantive legal basis and appeared to be an attempt to harass the stepson.

The Court held that the stepson could not be fastened with liability in these circumstances. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit.