JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Kamlesh Rani was earlier married to one Bhupinder Pal son of Murari Lal. Petitioners Ami Bala and Master Gulshan Kumar were born out of their wedlock. Bhupinder Pal died on 27.12.1988. Kamalesh Rani remarried the respondent on 27.5.1989. They were blessed with another child Master Yogesh Kumar. On behalf of the three children Kamlesh Rani being their next friend and guardian filed the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala on 4.8.1994 awarded maintenance to each of the child at Rs. 300/- p.m. A revision petition was preferred with the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 22.2.1995 allowed the revision and held that the petitioners namely Ms. Anu Bala and Master Gulshan Kumar are not entitled to maintenance from the respondent. It was held that being the step-children they have no right to claim the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. The short question that comes up for consideration is as to if the petitioners who are not children of the respondent, are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the respondent.
3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been enacted to provide maintenance for destitute wives, parents and children who are not able to maintain themselves. This is to ameliorate their condition. Sub-section (1) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. reads :
“125(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 (nor 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 of mother, unable to maintain herself,
a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such persPh960188on to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate nor exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, 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 husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.”
Since maintenance is being claimed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it goes without saying that case of the petitioners must fall within the four corners of the said provisions. Reference to Hindu Marriage Act or to Hindu Adoption Act, 1966, therefore, will not be appropriate particularly when there is no ambiguity in the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Perusal of the relevant provisions referred to above reveal that legislative stress is on his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate child or his father or mother. When the stress is on the word ‘his’, it obviously means that it would include only the person who procreates, begets or brings forth offspring. It will not include a child of another father or mother of another person. Very near to the facts of the present case is the Division Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 18502-M or 1994, decided on 6.7.1995. The Division Bench was concerned as to if the step-mother who is not the mother of the person, is entitled to claim maintenance or not. The answer was given in the negative and the Division Bench observed as under :
“The Legislature has specifically mentioned the word “his father” or “mother” in Clause (d) of the section and wherever necessary it also specifically mentioned the word “legitimate” or “illegitimate” minor child. It also explained that wife”includes a woman who has been divorced.” The fact that the term “step-mother” does not find mention in the entire body of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure goes to show that this summary provision of providing maintenance by incorporating it in the Code of Criminal Procedure was meant for the claimant or claimants defined or incorporated therein and with due respect we do not concur with the liberal interpretation contained in Parbati @ Paro v. Khiali Ram and Ors., 1984(2) Recent C.R. 506.”
5. The same analogy would apply in the present case. The children of another have not been mentioned in the entire Section 125, Cr.P.C. nor any right has been conferred on them to claim maintenance. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners.
6. For these reasons, the petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.