Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Stepchildren ordered to pay reduced maintenance amount to stepmother by Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Karnataka High Court has issued a ruling stating that a stepmother can claim maintenance from the legal heirs of her deceased husband if it is proven that her husband possessed a substantial number of properties, and the legal heirs were extracting income from them.

In this particular case, the High Court was hearing a petition filed by stepchildren seeking to set aside and quash the order of the Family Court, which had directed them to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance to their stepmother. The Counsel for the petitioners had argued that the stepmother was not covered under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) as she was not a natural/biological mother, and therefore not entitled to maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (the "Act"). It was also submitted that the maximum amount that could be granted as maintenance was Rs. 10,000/- per month.

The High Court, however, held that even though the definition of stepmother was not defined under Section 125 of the CrPC, the stepmother was covered in the definition of 'parents' under Section 2(d) of the Act. Therefore, the stepmother would be entitled to maintenance, but she would have to approach the Tribunal under the Act and would also have to produce evidence and documents in order to show that her husband was having a lot of properties and the petitioners were making income out of those properties.

The Bench of Justice K. Natarajan referred to the decision of a coordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Ulleppa and Ors. Vs Smt. Gangabai and observed that "as there are huge properties held by the husband of the stepmother of these petitioners, and they are having income, therefore, the step-mother is also entitled to maintenance." The Bench further held that "the order of granting maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- by the Family Court as interim maintenance is not sustainable, and the matter is required for evidence to be recorded, documents to be marked by the petitioner/stepmother in order to show her husband is having a lot of properties and they are having income. Though the respondent is receiving rent of Rs. 4,000/-, she is having a divorced daughter and granddaughter, therefore, the petitioner requires to agitate the same before the Family Court and also she can claim maintenance in the Senior Citizen Act. Such being the case, granting Rs. 25,000/- per month without recording the evidence is not sustainable."

Accordingly, the High Court modified the order of granting maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month until the disposal of the case by the trial court. The family court is directed to record the evidence of the parties and decide the issue and dispose of the matter in accordance with the law, taking into account the Senior Citizen Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Khaleel Ul Rehman & Ors. vs. Sharaffunnisa Muniri @ Ashaf Unnisa

Latest Legal News