The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 299 of 2021 --------- Dinanath Prasad ... Petitioner -Versus- 1. Arti Devi 2. The State of Jharkhand 3. The G.M./ Project Officer , C.C.L. , Religarha Colliery, Ramgarh --------- … Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 1 For the O.P. No. 3 --------- : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. : Mr. Prahabhat Kr. Sinha , Advocate : Mr. Namit Kumar , Advocate --------- JUDGEMENT C.A.V. on 20.12.2023 Pronounced on 19/04./2024 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the ‘Order’ dated 12.02.2021 passed by Sri Nikesh Kumar Sinha, learned Principal District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Ramgarh , in Original Maintenance Case No. 145 of 2014 by which prayer of maintenance has been rejected on behalf of son and daughter of the O.P. No.1 and partly allowed the petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 namely Arti Devi and the present petitioner is directed to pay as maintenance Rs. 5,000/- per month to the present O.P.No. 1 namely Arti Devi from the date of application. The learned Court below has further directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of amount of maintenance within one month of this order, failing with , the O.P. No. 1 will be entitled to get the same recovered through the process of law. 2. The case of the O.P. No. 1 (i.e. the Mother) of the 1 present petitioner Dinanath Prasad, in brief , is that her husband namely Kashinath was an employee of CCL and was working as ‘Fitter’ at Sayal Colliery, Patratu, Ramgarh and he died in harness on 04.08.2010 leaving behind the present O.P. No.1 and his sons Dinanath Prasad (present petitioner), Rahul Prasad and Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar and daughters Renu Kumari, Baby Kumari, Subhwanti Kumari and Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari. It is further stated that her daughters namely Renu Kumari and Baby Kumari got married during the lifetime of their father Kashinath and the other two daughters namely Subhwanti Kumari and Chandni Kumari Babli Kumari were unmarried at the time of his death. It is further stated that her 2nd son namely Rahul Prasad died after the death of his father due to prolonged illness and another son Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar was minor at the time of death of his father. Subhwanti Kumari got married after the death of her father and Chandani Kumari @Babli Kumari (O.P. No.2) is student of BA Part-II at Ramgarh. Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar (O.P. No.3) is still minor and is a student of class XI at Jindal School, Patratu. Further, case of the O.P. No.1 is that her elder son Dinanath Prasad (present revisionist petitioner) was given compassionate appointment in CCL after death of his father and her other children including Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari and Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar had filed no objection on an Affidavit for employment of the revisionist petitioner. The petitioner had also filed an affidavit before CCL to maintain the dependents of his late father including his brother and sisters. An agreement was also executed between them on 13.09.2010. The present petitioner is now a permanent employee of CCL and at present, he is posted in Category-1 at Religarha colliery, Ramgarh and has never given any maintenance to the Opposite party No. 1. It is further stated that 2 O.P. No.1 has a burden to maintain her above two children and she has to meet the expenses of their educational and other needs and the present petitioner has neglected to maintain the Opposite parties who are unable to maintain themselves. It is further stated that at present, petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month and he also gets bonus of Rs. 40,000/- and other allowances and overall, his monthly salary is more than Rs. 30,000/- and it is likely to be enhanced and O.P. No.1 had prayed for grant of Rs. 15,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance. 3. After issuance of notice, the petitioner appeared and filed show- cause and denying the claim of the O.P. No.1 and stated that she is claiming the maintenance from him on false grounds only with a motive to harass and blackmail the petitioner. It is further stated that the O.P. No.1 has suppressed the fact that she is the step- mother of the present petitioner. The natural mother of the petitioner namely Chinta Devi died on 03.02.1981 and the present O.P. No.1 (Arti Devi) is the 2nd wife of his father, having six children. The petitioner has struggled throughout his life and even after his marriage in 1994 he has been separated by the O.P. No.1 in 1996 and due to the wishes of his father (late Kashinath) he got the compassionate appointment in CCL. The Opposite Party No.1 has already received the C.M.P.F. and gratuity amount of about Rs. 20.00/-Lac, LIC amount of Rs. 7.00 Lac, five months pay about Rs. 70,000/- and funeral expenses worth Rs. 60,000/- from the CCL after the death of his father Kashinath. Opposite Party No.1 has also kept all the belongings including jewellery of his mother and besides that, present petitioner did not get any share in the land purchased by his late father in Ramgarh worth Rs. 7.00 Lac. The O.P. No.1 had also sold out the ancestral land for Rs. 40,000/- and had not given any share to him. O.P. No.1 is also getting Rs. 3500/- 3 per month as a pension from CCL. Apart from that petitioner had also been paying her the amount decided by the Panches by depositing the same in her account No. 31322. The O.P. No.1 lives in a quarter allotted by the CCL and the electricity bill and water tax is being deducted from the salary of the petitioner and he lives in a separate Asbestos house with his family. The petitioner has got two daughters and a son aged about 15 years, 13 years and 10 years respectively and all of them are pursuing their studies. Both the children of the O.P. No.1 namely Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari (O.P. No.2) and Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar were majors while they had sworn affidavits at the time of employment of the petitioner in CCL. He further stated that no agreement was executed between them that he had undertaken to keep and maintain the O.P. No.1 and other dependents of his late father. The O.P. No.1 has no financial crisis rather she is leading the descent life out of the interest from one time payment of death-cum- retiral benefit of his late father and monthly pension from CCL. The petitioner is getting a basic salary of Rs. 16,099/- and he has to maintain his wife and three children and on the above grounds it was prayed that the maintenance petitioner filed by the O.P. No.1 u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and is fit to be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 and 3 and learned A.P.P. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and arbitrary not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Court below has completely failed to appreciate the case of
Legal Reasoning
the parties and evidences available on the record, thus the Impugned Order is perverse and is fit to be set aside by this Court. It is submitted that the learned Court below has 4 completely failed to consider the fact that from the oral as well as documentary evidences, the petitioner is a step son of the O.P. No.1, but the learned court below has not decided the main issue as to whether petitioner is a step son or natural son of the O.P. No.1. It is submitted that the learned court below has also failed to appreciate the fact that during cross examination of the O.P. No.1 as the P.W.3, she has admitted in para-8 that she has no any documentary evidence that Dinanath i.e. the petitioner is her own son and further P.W.2 Kanhaiya Prasad who is own brother of the O.P. No.1 had admitted in para-21 of his cross examination that he was not aware of the name of the mother of the petitioner, which goes to show that petitioner is not the natural/real son of the O.P. No.1. It is submitted that the learned court below has further failed to appreciate the principle laid down in the Judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State Of Gujrat reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479 that the step mother is not entitled to get maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. from her step son and further held that a childless step mother may claim maintenance from her step son provided she is widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. It is submitted that the O.P. No.1 is not a childless widow, rather she has four natural married daughters and a major son namely Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar who is also a earning member of her family, therefore the petitioner, who is step son of the O.P. No.1 is not obliged to maintain her. It is submitted that the O.P. No.1 is not a destitute or a helpless lady rather the O.P. No.1 has received the death-cum-retrial benefit amounts of her late husband to the tune of around Rs. 18.00 to 20.00 lakh and she is also getting Rs. 3500/- per month as family pension from CCL as such she has sufficient means to maintain 5 herself, despite this learned court below has passed the Impugned Order against the present petitioner on wrong and misconceived findings. It is submitted that the learned court below has passed the Impugned Order on misinterpretation of provision of section 125 Cr.P.C. read with the Judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (1996)4 SCC 479 and wrongly observed that compassionate appointment of the petitioner in CCL on the death of his father namely late Kashinath is a legal inheritable property. It is submitted that the learned court below has also not considered the fact that all the legal inheritable property either movable or immovable of husband of the O.P. No.1 namely late Kashinath had been received or possessed by her. It is further submitted that the learned court below has not considered the fact that the O.P. No.1 is claiming the maintenance from the petitioner only with a motive to harass and deprive him from the ancestral property of his late father. It is submitted that there is no documentary evidence brought on record to show that petitioner had given Written Undertaking by way of an agreement to maintain the O.P. No.1 and her dependents. It is submitted that the learned court below has fixed the maintenance amount in completely illegal and arbitrary manner from the date of application. It is submitted that she also received five (05) months pay Rs. 70,000/- on account of death of her husband and also obtained the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the L.I.C. and funeral expenses worth Rs. 60,000/- from the C.C.L after death of her husband. It is submitted that she also sold the ancestral land for Rs. 40,000/- and 6 the petitioner did not get any share in the land purchased by his father in Ramgarh. It is submitted that O.P. No.1 had admittedly received the death-cum-retrial benefit amounts of her late husband (late Kashinath) from CCL under following heads- CMPF amount of 11,89,127/-, gratuity amount of Rs. 6,35,851.50/-, Rs. 60,000/- towards life cover scheme. O.P. No.1 is also getting family pension of Rs. 3500/- per month from CCL and she is living in CCL quarter which is allotted to the petitioner and electricity bill and water tax are being deducted from the salary of the petitioner. Therefore, O.P. No.1 is not the destitute or a helpless lady, rather she has sufficient means to maintain herself and is leading a descent life. It is submitted that name of real/natural mother of the petitioner is Chinta Devi, who had died on 03.02.1981 and documents marked as X is Death Certificate of Chinta Devi which shows that her death had taken place on 03.02.81 and she was the first wife of late Kashinath i.e. father of petitioner. It is submitted that the marriage of the youngest daughter of the O.P. No.1 namely Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari (O.P. No.2) has already been solemnized with Dhiraj Kumar Gupta on 10.12.2020 and at present no one is dependent upon the O.P. No.1. It is submitted that the O.P. No.1 has one natural son namely, Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar (O.P. No.3), who is a major and is doing private job in Tyre Showroom at Ramgarh and getting salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month and is liable to maintain his mother (O.P. No.1) if required and hence the impugned order passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Ramgarh , may be set-aside . 6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned 7 Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner must pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 1 who is step mother of the petitioner . It is submitted that O.P. No. 1 has fully supported her case and her witnesses examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 namely Mahesh Prasad Gupta and Kanhaiya Prasad respectively and they have supported the case of the O.P. No. 1. It is submitted that in view of the above this Criminal Revision may be dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1, after adopting the submission of A.P.P., has further submitted that this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by passing the order. It is submitted that the petitioner must pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 which is a meagre amount. It is submitted that admittedly in the present case after the death of father of the petitioner who happened to be husband of O.P. No. 1, the O.P. No. 1 namely Arti Devi was the first person who could have got employment on compassionate ground, but because of Undertaking given by the petitioner that he would maintain her and her children, she and her children had given no objection for providing employment to the petitioner. It is further submitted that a person who gets employment on compassionate ground had to give undertaking to the authority concerned that he will maintain all dependents of the deceased employee. The petitioner had also submitted such Undertaking before the CCL authorities. Moreover, petitioner had himself admitted that he was paying 4500/- per month to the O.P. No.1 i.e. 8 the Mother under the circumstances the act of challenging order of maintenance passed in Maintenance Case No. 145/2014 dated 12/02/2021 by which only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded as monthly maintenance to the O.P. No. 1 by the petitioner itself suggests that petitioner is not fair in maintaining the O.P. No. 1. It is submitted that the judgment reported in 1996 (4) SCC 479 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and hence this Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3, after adopting the submission of A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1, has further submitted that this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below requires interference from this Court. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 3 was not impleaded as the party in the Original Maintenance Case No. 145/2014 and due to mis-joinder of necessary party in the Original Maintenance Case, the O.P. No. 3 could not took its stand before the learned Court below and the impugned Order dated 12.02.2021 has been passed in absence of the O.P No. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner namely Dinanath Prasad is an employee of Religara Colliery, Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and he was offered compassionate employment under Para 9.3.0 of National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) in place of his deceased father, Late Kashi Nath. It is submitted that the whole object of granting compassionate is to enable the family of the deceased employee, who has died during his service in harness, to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole bread earner . At the time of considering for compassionate appointment, the authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of 9 the deceased, and it is satisfaction of his Employer that , the family will not be able to meet the crisis, then the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. The employee late Kashi Nath i.e. father of the petitioner died in harness on 04.08.2010 leaving behind his wife, two sons (including the petitioner) and three daughters (out of three daughters, one daughter was married) and hence most of the family members are his dependents as per service record. Therefore, on fulfillment of all eligibility the present petitioner namely Dinanath Prasad was considered for compassionate appointment in CCL without any objection from any other family member. It is submitted that an affidavit dated 10.12.2010 has also been submitted by Shri Dinanath Prasad before the concerned authority of CCL at the time of application for compassionate employment under Para. 9.3.0 of NCWA. The said affidavit is about details of surviving family members of late Kashi Nath, the father of Dina Nath Prasad i.e. the petitioner and in the same affidavit, name of Arti Devi appears as wife of Late Kashi Nath. It is submitted that in the affidavit dated 10.12.2010 as submitted before the concerned CCL authority, Dina Nath Prasad i.e. the petitioner has given undertaking on oath to maintain the dependent of his deceased father after getting the employment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that as per the terms of NCWA the petitioner has been granted compassionate appointment in CCL and it is the liability of the petitioner to maintain the dependents of deceased employee Late Kashi Nath. It is submitted that now the petitioner is denying to maintain the dependent of his deceased employee Late Kashi Nath 10 (father of the petitioner) which is not justified and shall frustrate the very object of compassionate appointment. Therefore, in the interest of justice the instant Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 9. Perused the record of this case and Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 10. It transpires from the Lower Court Record that the O.P. No. 1 ( i.e. the step mother of the petitioner ) alongwith her daughter Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari aged 17 years , and Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar aged 15 years alongwith all the document and enclosures are Annexure-I, Annexure-II series , Annexure –III and Annexure -IV had filed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 27.08.2014 for a direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month with further direction for enhancement if occasion so arises and for other reliefs. It transpires that the respondent – the petitioner had appeared before the learned Court below on 09.02.2015 and had filed show cause on 08.05.2015 . 11. It transpires that the O.P. No. 1 in support of her case got examined three (03) witness who are as follows:- (i) P.W. 1 is Mahesh Prasad Gupta i.e. Samdhi of O.P. No. 1 (ii) P.W. 2 is Kanhaiya Prasad i.e. brother of O.P. No. 1 and (iii) P.W. 3 is Arti Devi i.e the O.P. No. 1 herself 12. The O.P. No. 1 in support of her case got marked the following document as the Exhibit which have been marked as follows:- (i) Ext. 1 series are the documents which were called for from the CCL vide order dated 16.08.18 by the learned Court below. It reveals that Dinanath Prasad was given appointment in CCL on compassionate ground, which is an admitted fact. 11 (ii) Ext. 1/1 discloses that Arti Devi had received Rs. 60,000/- towards life cover scheme and gratuity amount of Rs. 6,35,851.50/- and ex-gratia amount Rs. 2141/-. (iii) Ext. 1/1 to Ext. 1/3 are the balance sheet of the payment. Whereas, Ext. 1/4 is pension statement being received by Arti Devi showing pension of Rs. 3,551/- per month . (iv) Ext. 1/5 is salary statement of the petitioner showing the net salary of Dinanath Prasad for the month of 01.08.2019 was Rs. 39,169/- and he was working as 'Fitter' at Religarha colliery. (v) Ext. 1/6 is list of posting submitted by Assistant manager ( Pers.) Sayal D Colliery. (vi) Ext.1/7 is the gratuity form filled up by deceased Kashinath and (vii) Ext. 1/8 is LTC form of the deceased employee Kashinath. 13. The petitioner is support in his case, got examined three witnesses who are as follows:- (i) O.P.W. 1 is Bhagwan Das Sah i.e. father – in –law of the petitioner (ii) O.P.W. 2 is Shiv Daras Yadav and (iii) O.P.W. 3 is Dinanath Prasad i.e. the petitioner himself 14. The petitioner in support of his case got marked the following document as the Exhibits which are as follows:- (i) Photocopy of Death Certificate of Chinta Devi is marked 'X' for identification. (ii) Photocopy of family relation certificate is marked "X/1" for identification. (iii) Photocopy of Cheque No. 778024 issued by CCL marked 'X/2' for identification and (iv) Photocopy of pension payment order is marked "X/3' for identification. 15. The Death Certificate of Chinta Devi marked 'X' shows that her death has taken place on 03.02.81 and she was the wife of 12 Kashinath. The photocopy of the cheque dated, 29.03.2011 shows that it was issued in the name of Arti Devi Wife of late Kashinath. The signature of Dinannath Prasad on Photocopy of affidavit is marked 'Y' for identification and his signature on the Notarized affidavit dated, 10.12.2010 has been marked 'Y/1' for identification. Photocopy of cheque No. 778024 dated, 29.03.2011 for Rs. 11,89,127/- marked 'Y/2' for identification. Photocopy of medical certificate showing the cause of death of Chinta Devi is marked as 'Y/3', as wife of Kashinath and she died on 03.02.81. Photocopy of family description issued by Block Office, Patratu dated, 26.11.10 shows that applicant Dinanath Prasad is the son of late wife namely, Chinta Devi of late Kashinath,. Arti Devi, Renu Kumari, Subhwati Kumari, Babli Kumari and Santosh Kumar were dependents of his 2nd wife Arti Devi. 16. Thereafter, the learned Court below after hearing both the sides, has directed the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 1 by allowing the petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. in part, hence the present Criminal Revision has been filed. 17. It appears that so far as the relationship between the parties is concerned, the O.P. No. 1 although is shown as the step mother of the petitioner but this step mother and step son relationship is contradicted by the petitioner himself by filing the affidavit . 18. O.P. No. 3 is the G.M. /Project Officer as party C.C.L. in the light of direction of this Court passed on 10.04.2023 , thereafter O.P. No. 3 has also appeared and filed the counter affidavit on 28.06.2023. 13 However, no rejoinder to the said counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No. 3 has been filed by on behalf of the petitioner. 19. It reveals from the Criminal Revision Application filed on behalf of the petitioner and also show cause of the petitioner filed before the learned Court below that one late Kashinath had died on 04.08.2010 leaving behind the petitioner Dinanath Prasad from his first wife namely Chinta Devi and also one Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari and Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar and three other daughter who are all married on the one hand and as heirs and also and O.P. No. 1 Arti Devi is second wife of the late Kashinath after the evidence as well as O.P. No. 1 is second wife of late Kashinath . 20. The petitioner has also asserted that even the natural son of the petitioner namely Santosh Prasad @ Sani who has become major and working in Tyre showroom in Ramgarh getting salary of 20,000/- per month and is also liable to maintain his mother i.e. O.P. No. 1. 21. However the O.P. No. 1 has filed the counter affidavit and had stated that after death of her deceased husband she had to marry two daughters and she had to take care of education of four children i.e. two sons namely Rahul Prasad and Sani Prasad and two daughters namely Shubhunti Kumari and Chandni Kumari. 22. It is also a fact that the petitioner (being son from first wife of deceased Kashinath) had given Undertaking in writing before the office of O.P. No. 3 on 10.12.2010 as contained in annexure “B” of the Counter Affidavit of the O.P. No. 3 that he will maintain the dependent of the decease father. He also admitted that the O.P. No. 1 namely Arti Devi as well as Shubhwanti Kumari , Chandni Kuamri @ Babli Kumari Rahul Prasad and Santosh Kumar are the family members of the deceased Kashinath and 14 Renu Kumari and Babu Kumari are the married daughters of the deceased. 23. Thus it is an Undertaking on the part of the petitioner before the employer to maintain the dependents of his deceased father Kashinath under para 9:3:2 and NCWA VI at the time of securing his employment on compassionate ground and which is evident from the counter affidavit at annexure B filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 3. Annexure -C is the Appointment Letter which also reveals that the petitioner has been appointed on the basis of compassionate appointment in the C.C.L. 24. So far oral evidence is concerned, the P.W. 1 namely Mahesh Prasad Gupta is the Samdhi of the O.P. No. 1and he has supported the case of the O.P. No. 1and stated that the applicant No. 1 is the mother of respondent i.e the petitioner whereas the applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 3 are the minor and brother of the petitioner. He also stated that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of his father Kashinath who was working in Sayal Collieries at CCL and the applicant in case of elder son Dinanath requested the official of collieries who has to appoint the petitioner Dinanath and the petitioner had promised to maintain his mother and other brother and sisters but later on he refused to maintain them . The petitioner stopped the expenses and the payment to the O.P. No. 1 and the petitioner refused to maintain her and also his brother and sisters, although he has put signature on service papers, he had acknowledged that the respondent petitioner is her own son and not the step son of the O.P. No. 1. During cross–examintion he admitted that he is a Samdhi of the applicant No. 1 and he could not say the nanihal of the petitioner Dinanath and could not say the Mayke of Arti Devi . He 15 could not say the pension received by Arti Devi. He had shown ignorance that the applicant had been given a sum of Rs.11,89,127/- on 29.03.2011 by the cheque No. 7782024. However the respondent –petitioner had given in writing that he shall maintain his mother , brother and sister but he shown ignorance that the applicant No. 1 is getting pension of Rs. 3,550/- per month had got approx. Rs. 20,00,000/- worth CMPF gratuity , five (05) months salary of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- from L.I.C. and apart from this Rs. 4500/- per month to be paid by the respondent -petitioner . Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 1 , it is evident that P.W. 1 has supported the case of the O.P. No. 1 Arti Devi but shown ignorance with regard to amount received by the applicant –O.P. No. 1 on account of death of husband of the applicant – the respondent . Thus the evidence of P.W. 1 is not convincing. 25. P.W. 2 Kanhaiya Prasad has stated that the respondent petitioner is own son of the applicant No. 1 whereas the applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 3 are own minor brother and sisters . He stated that the husband of the applicant was working in C.C.L. who had died in harness and as such the applicant No. 1 was offered the post but as the applicant No. 1 was aged lady and hence she believed upon her elder son Dinananth i.e. the petitioner and had requested the officers of collieries to appoint the petitioner Dinanath in compassionate ground . The petitioner had also promised to maintain her mother, brothers and sisters but later on he refused and stopped paying maintenance and other expenses and hence the present case was filed. During cross examination he admitted that Arti Devi is his own sister but he showed ignorance about the name of the 16 mother of the respondent –petitioner and stated that the husband of the applicant had died in the year 2010 . He denied that Chinta Devi is first wife of decease Kashinath . He also admitted that the deceased Kashinath had four daughter namely Renu Kumari, Baby Kumari, Subhwanti Kumari and Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari and have two (02) sons namely Dinanath i.e. the elder son, Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar i.e. the younger son . He shown ignorance about grant of pension of Rs. 3750/- per month as widow pension from the C.C.L.. He admitted that the applicant–O.P. No. 1 had received certain amount in the year 2011 worth CNPF, L.I.C. amount but could say amount. He denied the suggestion that Chinta Devi is the mother of the petitioner and not Arti Devi. He admitted that the applicant was living in C.C.L. quarter but he does not know it was allotted to whom and he is also not aware that it was allotted in the name of the respondent – petitioner and its rent of electricity and water are being deducted from the salary of the petitioner . Thus from the scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 2, it is the evident that the P.W. 2 is own brother of the applicant No. 1- O.P. No. 1 and supported her case but it also reveals that he suppressed that Chinta Mani Devi was own mother of the petitioner. He also admitted that the applicant No. 1- O.P. No. 1 had received handsome amount after the death of her husband. Thus evidence P.W. 2 can be accepted in part. 26. P.W. 3 is Arti Devi i.e. the O.P. No. 1 herself and has filed her evidence on an affidavit stating therein that the respondent –petitioner is her eldest son and who has been appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband Kashinath on 04.08.2010 and after death of her husband , she was 17 also offered job on the basis of compassionate appointment but she recommended the name of the petitioner Dinanath Prasad who assured her to maintain her and children. Even after service of the petitioner in the colliery , the petitioner kept the applicant- O.P. No. 1 with full care and maintain them but later on he has stopped maintaining her and children and even started assaulting her but she worked with maturity and had not instituted any Criminal Case upon the petitioner but when education of her sons and daughters were effected then she complaint she filed the maintenance case and she stated that her son Dinanath is also earning Rs. 25,000/- per month and apart from this he got Rs. 40,000/- as bonus and Rs. 30,000/- as arrears of maintenance amount . Her son Dinanath had promised in affidavit on 10.12.2010 that he maintain them and hence she also requested and recommended the authority of C.C.L. to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. She denied that Kashinath had wife namely Chinta Devi nor the petitioner is son of Chinta Devi hence she may be given maintenance amount. During her cross-examination she stated that she had six children including Dinanath , Renu Kumari, Baby Kumari, Subhwanti Kumari and Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari and Sani Prasad @ Santosh Kumar respectively. She also stated that she was the first wife of late Kashinath, though she has no documentary evidence to show that she is first wife of Kashinath. She denied the suggestion that one Chinta Devi is the first wife of Kashinath . She also admitted for getting Rs. 3500/- per month as family pension from C.C.L. She also admitted to have received the amount of C.M.P.F. on 29.03.2011 approx. Rs. 11,09,127/-. She also admitted to have received Rs. 60,000/- of funeral etc. She denied for receiving L.I.C. amount and amount of Rs. 40,000/- by 18 selling the land. 27. Thus from the scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 3 i.e. O.P. No. 1 , it is evident that her evidence is correct on the point of “Undertaking” given by the petitioner before the C.C.L. for maintain her and her child . However her own relationship with the petitioner had been disputed as she claimed to be own mother of the petitioner whereas the petitioner had refuted the claim and stated that she is the step mother of the petitioner and one Chinta Devi was mother of the petitioner who had died on 03.02.1981. 28. So far documentary evidence is concerned, it would appear that one family report obtained from the office of the B.D.O., Patratu shows legal heir of the late Kashinath dated 26.11.2010 and document has been marked as X/1 for its identification. Document X/2 is the photocopy of payment of Rs. 11,88,127/- in the name of Arti Devi wife of late Kashinath . Document X is the photocopy of the death certificate of the Chinta Devi wife of late Kashinath who had died on 03.02.1981 and Death certificate was issued on 10.11.2010. Document X/3 reveals that Arti Devi i.e. the O.P. No. 1 gets family pension of Rs. 3551/- . 29. O.P.W. 1 namely Bhagwan Das Sah is a retired Teacher who has filed his evidence on an affidavit, stating therein that the O.P. No. 1 is step mother of the petitioner and one Chinta Devi was the mother of the petitioner who died on 03.02.1981. He admitted that the petitioner was appointed in C.C.L on compassionate ground of account of death of his father and all the amount of deceased Kashinath was paid to applicant –O.P. No. 1 and the applicant got entire amount approx. Rs. 20,00,000/- for Gratuity, Rs. 7,00,000/- of L.I.C. and Rs. 60,000/- of funeral expenses and 19 salary of deceased Rs. 70,000/- and she is also getting widow pension of Rs. 3500/- per month and Rs. 4500/- paid by the petitioner per month. The O.P. No. 1 is residing in the quarter of C.C.L. and rent and electricity and water tax are being paid from the salary of the petitioner. Hence the applicant –O.P. No. 1 is living alongwith the minor sons whereas the petitioner is getting less salary and he submitted that he has got wife and two children . During cross-examination he admitted that he is father –in- law of the petitioner and stated that Babita Devi is his daughter and who was married with the petitioner in the year 1994. He learnt from the petitioner that Arti Devi is step mother of the petitioner and Chinta Devi was the own mother of the petitioner Dinanath and this was also disclosed by the Dinanath to him. However he could not say that date of death of Chinta Devi . He admitted that Arti Devi – O.P. No. 1 had given in writing before C.C.L. that the petitioner is the own son and hence the respondent- petitioner was given job in C.C.L. However supported the payment received by the O.P. No. 1. Thus, from the scrutinizing the evidence of O.P.W. 1, it is evident that he is an interested witness and he is father-in –law of the petitioner and his evidence is not reliable. 30. O.P. W. 2 is Shiv Daras Yadav who also stated the same fact as stated by O.P.W. 1 on the point of getting job in C.C.L. by the petitioner and receiving of the various amount by the applicant- O.P. No. 1 from the C.C.L. . He further stated that one Santosh Kumar own son of the applicant No. 1 is doing in job at showroom of Tyre More at Ramgarh and getting Rs. 15,000/- per month , however he maintains his wife and three children . During cross examination he admitted that he is not aware of the contents mentioned in affidavit which have been used 20 in evidence. He admitted to be acquainted with the petitioner since 1970 . He further admitted that Kashinath was father of the respondent – petitioner who had died on 10-12 years ago. He stated that at the time death of father of Dinanath i.e the petitioner, he was aged around 10-12 years and he was maintained nourished by step mother. Thus, the evidence of O.P.W. 2 is not reliable as he himself admitted that he is not aware of the contents of the affidavit which has been filed in evidence before the learned Court below on 18.09.2019. However he himself admitted during para 17 of his cross-examination that Dinanath was aged about 10-12 years at time of death of his own mother and he was maintained and nourished by his step mother . 31. O.P.W. 3 is Dinanath Prasad himself who also filed the evidence on an affidavit on 18.11.2019 stating therein that Chinta Devi is own mother of the petitioner and she died on 03.02.1981. Thereafter his father had married with Arti Devi i.e. O.P. No. 1 who started treating him step motherly after discontinuing his study. He produced the Death Certificate issued by the BDO. He also stated that he was married in the year 1994 and stared living separately him in the year 1996. However , after death of his father, the applicant – the O.P. No. 1 got Gratuity amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- , Rs. 7,00,000/- towards LIC , Rs. 60 ,000/- for funeral expenses , five month salary of Rs. 70,000/- which were kept by the applicant- the O.P. No. 1 . Even, after the death of his own mother, the entire jewelleries approx. Rs. 5,00,000/- was kept by the O.P. No. 1. She had also taken possession of the land approx. Rs. 7,00,000/- which was purchased by his father late Kashinath. Even the applicant has sold the land of village to the tune of approx. Rs. 40,000/- and has kept entire amount. She is also getting 21 widow pension of Rs. 3500/- per month. Even the petitioner had deposited money in her account. Santosh Kumar is the son of the applicant who is getting Rs. 15,000/- per month by doing job in show room at Tyre More, Ramgarh. However the petitioner gets very less salary from which he maintains his wife and two (02) marriageable daughters and one son who is also studying and he has to maintain them with great difficulty. Even the report submitted by the CCL before the learned Court below clearly shows that the application is beyond truth and the applicant, apart from the getting pension, has also obtained amount in C.M.P.F. and living luxurious life . Even the applicant –O.P. No. 1 is residing in the quarter of the petitioner which was allotted to him by C.C.L. and her electricity bill and water tax are being deducted from the salary of the petitioner and the petitioner is living separately with his family members by constructing the house of Asbestors Sheet. However during cross-examintion he admitted that he was appointed on the compassionate ground. He further admitted in para 18 of the counter affidavit that he has not put signature on affidavit rather he put signature on blank papers and which have been converted into an affidavit. 32. During further cross-examination after having shown two (02) affidavits of the petitioner dated 10.12.2010 before Notary, Ramgarh , he admitted that his signature which were marked as “Y” and Y/1 for its identification . However he further stated and admitted that his step mother and other brother and sisters had given no objection certificate on the basis of which was appointed on compassionate ground. He denied the suggestion for obtaining the Death Certificate of her mother i.e. Chinta Devi by forgery. 22 He denied the suggestion neither Chinta Devi was the mother nor wife of his father. He denied the suggestion that Arti Devi is own mother. He admitted that marriage of his three (03) sisters were performed by his father during his life time and one of his sister is married by his mother i.e. the O.P. No. 1 after the death of his father. Thereafter he got taught his brother and sister and later on his mother taught them and entire expenditure was made by his mother in their studies. He denied the suggestion for not giving in writing that he will maintain his mother . 33. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of the O.P.W. 3 namely Dinanath Prasad i.e. the petitioner, it is evident that he tried to rebut the claim of the O.P. N. 1 but he ultimately admitted that he had given an Affidavit to maintain his mother –O.P. No. 1 and his step brother and sister. He is aggrieved by the fact that entire payments of approx. Rs. 18-20 lakhs toward Death –cum- Retiral dues , Rs. 7,00,000/- from L.I.C., Rs. 70,000/- of five (05) months had been received by the applicant No. 1-O.P. No. 1 only and she is also getting Rs. 3500/- per month as widow pension. However the conduct of this petitioner is not fair as he himself had admitted for filing the affidavit dated 10.12.2010 which was he submitted before the C.C.L. i.e. office of O.P.W. 3 at the time of his appointment , He had claimed for not putting his signature on said affidavit rather he put the signature on the blank paper and the blank paper was converted into that affidavit and therefore his signature on affidavit No. 30827 dated 10.12.2010 and affidavit No. 30828 dated 10.12.2010 were marked as identification 23 as ‘Y’ and ‘Y/1’ respectively. However this statement is far from being truth. 34. The conduct of the petitioner is not appreciated by this Court, however this Court refrains itself for making any observation as it may effect also service condition of the petitioner at this stage. However, apart from this, the petitioner himself admitted that he has been appointed as compassionate ground only after his step mother and other brothers and sisters had given ‘No Objection’. 35. It further transpires that in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C, disputed question of facts as to whether the petitioner is the step son of the applicant No. 1-O.P. No. 1 or the applicant No. 1-O.P. No. 1 is step mother of the respondent-petitioner cannot be decided and it can be decided only in the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction . 36. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P.No. 3, it would appear that the petitioner has been provided with compassionate employment under para 9:3:0 of National Coal Wages Agreement in short ( NCWA) in place of his deceased father late Kashinath who had died in harness . It has also been stated that late Kashinath had died on 04.08.2010 leaving behind his wife , two (02) sons including this petitioner and three (03) daughters and two (02) daughters were married and hence most of family members are his dependents as per services record . Hence the petitioner was appointed in the C.C.L. on compassionate ground without having any objection from other family members to look after them. 37. It is also been pointed out by the C.C.L. –O.P. No.3 that an affidavit dated 10.12.2010 had also been submitted by the 24 petitioner Dinanath before concerned authority of C.C.L. at the time of application for compassionate employment under para 9.3.0 of NCWA . The said affidavit shows details of surviving family members and name of Arti Devi appeared as the wife of Late Kashi Nath and the photocopy of the affidavit dated 10.12.2010 is enclosed as Annexure-B in the Counter Affidavit of the O.P. No. 3. 38. It is further pointed out in said affidavit dated 10.12.2010 as submitted before the concerned C.C.L. authority that the petitioner Deena Nath Prasad had given an Undertaking on ‘Oath’ to maintain the dependents of his deceased father after getting the employment on compassionate ground. Even as per the record of the C.C.L. the petitioner has to maintain his mother and other dependents as per Own ‘Undertaking” given before the competent authority of C.C.L. . 39. It has been pointed out that as per the terms of NCWA , it is liability of the petitioner to maintain the dependents of deceased employee late Kashi Nath and photocopy of the appointment letter dated 13.06.2011 is enclosed as Annexure – C. 40. Although the documents X/1, which is photocopy of Family Report prepared by the Office of B.D.O, Patratu reveals that the petitioner Dinanath Prasad is son from his wife Chinta Devi whereas Arti Devi is second wife and Renu Kumari ( married) is daughter from second wife and Subhwanti Kumari , Babli Kumari and Santosh Kumar are the two other unmarried daughters and sons from the second wife and even the second son Santosh Kumar who was major around twenty years , however the document was not produced before the competent authority of CCL rather the petitioner alongwith the applicant –O.P. No. 1 had filed affidavit No. 30827 dated 10.12.2010 which is Annexure -III of the Maintenance Case filed before the learned Court below and which 25 reveals that Arti Devi is the wife of the deceased and Renu Kumari, Baby Kumari, Subhwati Kamari and Chandni Kumari @ Babli Kumari and Santosh Kumar respectively are daughters and sons as well as the petitioner is son and it does not disclose that Arti Devi and three (03) daughters and one son, were the step sisters and brother of the petitioner and signature of the petitioner was marked as Y before the learned Court below during his cross- examination at para 20 . Even the another affidavit No. 30828 dated 10.12.2010 i.e. Annexure III A reveals that Arti Devi is surviving mother of Dina Nath Prasad i.e. the petitioner and who is a house wife and widow of Kashinath and signature of the petitioner is marked as identification marked as Y/1 in para 20 of his further cross- examination. Therefore the petitioner cannot be allowed to resile from own Undertaking that Arti Devi is his mother and not the step mother. 41. First affidavit which was enclosed as Annexure –III reveals of Maintenance Petition that Arti Devi is wife of deceased Kashinath whereas Dinanaath i.e. the petitioner is son of deceased Kashinath and it does not show that the petitioner is step son of Arti Devi. 42. Other affidavit dated 10.12.2010 which was enclosed as Annexure –III/A i.e. document ‘Y’ shows that the petitioner Dinannath had admitted that name of his surviving mother is Arti Devi(i.e. the O.P. NO. 1) 43. However, in the above case there is disputed question of fact as to whether that the applicant No. 1-O.p. No. 1 is own mother or step mother in view of the own affidavit of the petitioner filed before the C.C.L. while affidavit No. 30827 dated 10.12.2010 and the affidavit No. 30828 dated 10.12.2010 marked as Y/1 . 26 44. Although Annexure-IV of Maintenance Case No. have not been marked on behalf of the both sides but it reveals that the Annexure –IV is an Agreement between Dina Nath Prasad on one hand as the first party and Arti Devi i.e. the applicant –O.P. No. 1 on the other hand as second party and has been agreed in presence of witnesses that the petitioner will be getting job in place of late Kashinath Prasad and entire amounts will belong to Arti Devi and her heirs and the petitioner Dina Nath Prasad will not put claim. It is also agreed that Dina Nath Prasad i.e. the petitioner after joining the service will distribute/disburse his salary , arrear, bonus amount in both the sides in equal proportion and half of the amount may be deposited in the bank of the first party and the petitioner Dina Nath Prasad will maintain his family with half of his salary and on his retirement the entire emoluments of his retirement dues shall be given to his family members only . It is also agreed that both the sides will live separately as per own convenience and will not make accusation against each other . Even making expenditure on two unmarried daughters for the second party at the time of their marriage will be optional for the 1st party and he may cooperate or may not cooperate. Similarly second party may also cooperate or may not cooperate at the time of marriage of daughters of first party. In case of not getting employment the entire amount of C.P.F. will distributed equally but after marriage of two daughters of second party. 45. Thus it is the evident that the petitioner is trying to retract from his Undertaking given at the time employment before the C.C.L. and suddenly raising the issue that the applicant No. 1 – O.P. No. 1 is his step mother for the first time in the year 08.05.2015 by filing show cause and adducing the evidence in the 27 year 2019 . This amounts to suppression of material facts by the petitioner. 46. Document marked as X and X/1 for identification on behalf of the respondent –petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage at the same not proved by the competent authority and hence it cannot be presumed at this stage that Chinta Devi was mother of the petitioner and the applicant No. 1 –O.P. No. 1 is step mother of the petitioner. 47. The disputed question of fact and law could not be decided in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. and as such this Criminal Revision application is devoid of any merit. 48. Apart from this , it is further evident that much emphasis has been given by the petitioner on the judgment reported in reported in 1996 SCC 429 . 49. It has been held in the case of in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479 at para 15 as follows:- “Para 15:- The point in controversy before us however is whether a ‘stepmother’ can claim maintenance from the stepson or not, having regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. Having regard to this special object the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the legislature. Consequently, to achieve this objective, in our opinion, a childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. The obligation of the son to maintain his father, who is unable to maintain himself, is unquestionable. When she claims maintenance from her natural born children, she does so in her status as their ‘mother’. Such an interpretation would be in accord with the explanation attached to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 because to exclude altogether the personal law applicable to the 28 parties from consideration in matters of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code may not be wholly justified. However, no intention of legislature can be read in Section 125 of the Code that even though a mother has her real and natural born son or sons and a husband capable of maintaining her, she could still proceed against her stepson to claim maintenance. Since, in this case we are not concerned with, we express no opinion, on the question of liability, if any, of the stepson to maintain the stepmother, out of the inherited family estate by the stepson and leave that question to be decided in an appropriate case. Our discussion is confined to the obligations under Section 125 CrPC only.” 50. Thus in the above case also the Hon’ble Supreme Court have not given any opinion on the question of liability , if any , of step son to maintain the step mother out of their inherited property in family by the step son and had left at question to be decided in the appropriate case. Although, the above case the Hon’ble Supreme Court after having noticed that the step mother has filed said case against the petitioner even though the step mother had got five (05) natural born sons and who were all married and three (03) of them were well to do and capable of maintaining their mother and even the said respondent No. 2, who was step mother, was in possession of sufficient means and property besides monthly income derived from the business of her husband , yet the step mother –respondent No. 2 preferred to claim the maintenance only from his step son during out of natural born sons . Therefore in the above background Hon’ble Supreme Court had denied the maintenance to the step mother. 51. It is further evident that although the O.P. No. 1 has received approx. Rs. 20.00 lac/- towards Death-cum- retiral benefit but the circumstances suggest that she must have mode expenditure of those amount in the marriage of her daughter who was married after death of husband late Kashinath and the petitioner had not shown any thing on record to show that he had also cooperated in 29 the marriage of his sisters . Although the learned Court below has dismissed the claim of Suni Prasad @ Santosh Kumar and Chandani Kumari @ Babli Kumari i.e. the brother and sister of the petitioner but the petitioner was obliged to maintain them also in view of his own Undertaking given by him before the office of the O.P. No. 3 by filing an Notarised Affidavit dated 10.12.2010 . As said brother and sister namely Suni Prasad @ Santosh Kumar and Chandani Kumari @ Babli Kumari have not challenged the said order and as such this Court is not passing any order on the claim of her brother and sister namely Suni Prasad @ Santosh Kumar and Chandani Kumari @ Babli Kumari respectively 52. Apart from this it is evident that although the petitioner had tried to show that other son Santosh Kumar is doing job and getting Rs. 15,000/- per month but it cannot be sufficient to maintain his mother fully .However , this Court not is not making any observation at this stage as the part of the said order has not been challenged before this Court and as such this Court retrains itself for giving any finding on this aspect. 53. However so far as the payment of the maintenance amount Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant No. 1 –O.P. No. 1 is concerned , this Court upheld the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by Sri Nikesh Kumar Sinha, learned Principal District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Ramgarh , in Original Maintenance Case No. 145 of 2014. 54. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 299 of 2021 is dismissed however interim order passed on 20.12.2023 is hereby vacated . Bibha/ 30 (Sanjay Prasad, J.)