TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE
i.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ii.

iv.
Page No.

CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Right of Miantenance under Code of criminal Procedure
1.2 Maintenance under Section 125
1.3 Maintenance- meaning
1.4 Parents Right of Miantenance
1.5 Provision under Criminal procedure Code, 1973
1.6 The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

CHAPTER- II
DAUGHTER IS LIABLE TO PAY MAINTENANCE TO HER
PARENTS
2.1 Introduction of the case

2.2 Facts
2.3 Contentions
2.4 Issue
2.5 Judgment of the court
2.6 Other citations
2.7 Analysis and Conclusion

CHAPTER-III
ADOPTIVE MOTHER CAN CLAIM MAINTAINANCE
3.1 Introduction of the case
3.2 Facts
3.3 Contentions
3.4 Issue
3.5 Judgment of the court
3.6 Other citations
3.7 Analysis and Conclusion

CHAPTER-IV
FULFILMENT OF PARENTAL OBLIGATION IS A NOT A PRECONDITION TO CLAIM MAINTENANCE
4.1 Introduction of the case

4.2 Facts
4.3 Contentions
4.4 Issue
4.5 Judgment of the court
4.6 Other citations
4.7 Analysis and Conclusion

CHAPTER-V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Brief of all the Chapters
5.2 Conclusions and Findings of the Researcher
5.3 Suggestions Based on Finding

LIST OF CASES
ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF STATUTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2

INTRODUCTION

1.1 RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The moral obligation to maintain ones wife, children and parents was recognized in the ancient
Hindu system, but its enforcement was least resorted to, in the then existing social conditions.
The code is mainly an adjectival (procedural) law. The object of the code is to provide a
machinery for the punishment of offenders violative of the substantive laws. Some terms are
specifically defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, but in the absence of such definition, the
definitions set out in the Indian Penal Code are adopted.
1.2 MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125
Section 125 is a provision of its kind. This existed as Section 488 in the old code of 1882. lt is
one of the major provisions of the code to be put in maximum use and also one which has
undergone major changes by several amendments.
Section 125 and the other related clauses (Sections 126 & 127) in very abstract sense impose a
legal duty on persons who have a moral obligation to take care of certain of his relations. Hence,
it provides maintenance as a right to all the dependents who could be driven towards destitution.
The right can be enforced on failure by one to take care of his near relatives. The object of this
provision as is spoken by Sir James Fitz Stephen, the pilot of this legislation, is preventing
vagrancy or at least preventing its consequences1.
The relief provided under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be enforced through
the Magistrate Courts, spread all over the country. By affording an effective and speedy remedy
without much expenditure, it intends to save the party entitled for maintenance from initiating a
prolonged litigation before civil courts.
The provision is more like enforcement of a moral duty which every father or husband or son
owe towards their children or wife or parents respectively. The object is not to punish them for
their past neglect but to prevent vagrancy which may set in because of failure on their part 2. It
thus compels those who have a moral duty and who could support those people who are unable

1 Chandrachud .J observed in Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamladevi and another, AIR 1975 SC 83 at p.85.

2 Kanniappan .M v. Akilandammal, AIR 1954 Mad 427.

3

to do so3.

1.3 MAINTENANCE- MEANING

Maintenance means appropriate food, clothing and lodging that are necessary for one's
sustenance. But in an extended meaning, it can include also the expenditures that are incurred
towards health and education.

1.4 PARENTS RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE

The code enables the Magistrate to make an order against a son for the payment of monthly
allowance of maintenance to his father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself.
The facts that need to be asserted before the court are:
(i) The father or mother is unable to maintain himself or herself, and
(ii) The person against whom the claim is sought has sufficient means to maintain his father or
mother and yet has neglected or refused to maintain them.

1.5 PROVISION UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

Section 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents,
(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 not 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.

3 Bshiram v. Nathu, 1960 Cr.L.J. 1376

4

1.6 THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS

ACT, 2007
Under the act, maintenance application can be filed by parents and senior citizens (above
60 years) unable to maintain himself/herself, against children (not minor) or relatives
(who would inherit and are in possession of the property of the elderly).
The maintenance application can be filed by the senior citizen or a parent or any other
person or organization authorized by him, if incapable of doing so himself.
The maintenance application can be filed either in the district where the elderly resides,
or where the children or relatives resides. Notices would be sent and the proceedings
should conclude within 90 days from the date of service of the maintenance application
on the children or relatives.
The case would be referred for conciliation, if appropriate, before hearing. The findings
of the conciliation officer (who can be the maintenance officer.NGO representative or
anyone on behalf of the elderly) should be submitted to the tribunal within a month. If an
applicable settlement has been reached, Tribunal shall pass an order according to that
settlement.
If, children or relatives are ordered by the Tribunal to pay maintenance to the elderly, fail
to comply, they are liable to a fine or imprisonment.
Abandonment of the elderly is now a cognizable offence. Anyone responsible for
looking after or protecting the senior citizens, leaves him/her in any place with the
intention of wholly abandoning, shall be punished and fined.
Role of NGO has also been legislated under the act e.g. for filling maintenance
application on behalf of the elderly if he/she is unable to do so himself/herself, for
reconciliation and reconciliation and representation of his/her case if unable to do so and
authorized someone else to represent and facilitate.

CONCLUSION

Relevant extracts from a few landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and various High
Courts of India have been taken by the researcher to enumerate the laws relating to maintenance
of Parent. The few basic principles laid down by the courts which forms a part of the problem,
are analysed by way of chapters 2, 3 and 4.

CHAPTER 2:
DAUGHTER IS LIABLE TO PAY MAINTENANCE TO HER
PARENTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE
The case involves an issue where a father claims maintenance from his daughter. The courts have
used the Mischief Rule and the Rule of Reasonable Construction of Interpretation, to give effect
to the intention of the Parliament so that the actual meaning of the statute can be properly
understood.
Through the interpretation of clause (d), the court has widened the scope of the expression "his father or
mother" and it is not confined only to the father or mother of the son but also to the father or mother of the
daughter.

Name of the Case and details:

DR. (MRS.) VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBAT VS KASHI RAO RAJARAM SAWAI AND ANR
ON 18 FEBRUARY, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1100, 1987 SCR (2) 331
Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PETITIONER:
DR. (MRS.) VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBAT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KASHI RAO RAJARAM SAWAI AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT- 18/02/1987

2.2 FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant, a medical practitioner at Kalyan, District Thane, is the married daughter of
Respondent No.1, Kashirao Rajaram Sawai, by his first wife, who died in 1948. Thereafter,
6

Respondent No. 1 remarried and he is living with his second wife and is unable to maintain
himself due to his old age.
The respondent filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Court Kalyan claiming
maintenance from the appellant at the rate of Rs.500 per month on the ground that he was unable
to maintain himself. The objection of the Daughter was that an application under Section 125(1)
(d) Criminal Procedure code by a father to claim maintenance from his daughter was not
maintainable, It was overruled by the Trial Magistrate, and was upheld by the High Court on
Revision. Further, the Supreme Court dismissed the daughters appeal by Special Leave.

2.3 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

The appellant raised a preliminary objection, that an application under section 125(1)(d) Criminal
Procedure Code by a father to claim maintenance from his daughter was not maintainable. The
contention of the appellant was that a married daughter has no obligation to maintain her parents
even if they are unable to maintain themselves.

2.4 ISSUE:
1. Under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, section 125(1)(d), scope of Interpretation of the
pronoun his, whether includes her.
2. Whether a claim by a father under section 125(1)(d) Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable
or not.
3. How does Section 2(y)4 of Criminal Procedure Code read with section 85 of Indian Penal Code
and section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act Maintenance of father/mother by a daughter applies
to this.

1.5 JUDGEMENT BY THE COURT

The court held that:
1. The Clause (d), Section 125(1) has used the expression 'his father or mother' but, the use of the
2.

word 'his' does not exclude the parents claiming maintenance from their daughter.
Section 2(y) Criminal Procedure Code provides that words and expressions used herein and
not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively assigned to
them in that Code. Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun he and its

4 Section 2(y)-words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) have the
meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code.

5 Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun 'he' and its derivatives are used for any person whether male
or female.

derivatives are used for any person whether male or female. Thus, in view of section 8 Indian
Penal Code read with section 2(y) Criminal Procedure Code, the pronoun his in clause (d) of
section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code also indicates a female.
3. Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act lays down that in all Central Acts and Regulations,
unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words importing the masculine
gender shall be taken to include females. Therefore, the pronoun 'his' as used in clause (d) of
section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code includes both a male and a female.
4. The parents will be entitled to claim maintenance against their daughter provided, however, the
other conditions as mentioned in the section are fulfilled. Before ordering maintenance in
favour of a father or a mother against their married daughter, the court must be satisfied that
the daughter
has sufficient means of her own independently of the means or income of her husband, and
that the father or the mother, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself.
5. When the statute provides that the pronoun 'his' not only denotes a male but also a female, the
court also referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Criminal Procedure Code Bill for
the interpretation of clause (d) of section 125(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The father or
mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, can claim maintenance from their son or
daughter. The expression 'his father or mother, is not confined only to the father or mother of
the son but also to the father or mother of the daughter. Hence, in other words, the expression
6.

'his father or mother' should also be construed as 'her father or mother'.

The court is of the view that, a daughter after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter of
the father or mother. If it is not so, then parents having no son but only daughters and unable to
maintain themselves, would go destitute, if the daughters even though they have sufficient

means refuse to maintain their parents.

7. Hence, after giving best consideration to the question, the court was of the view that Section
125(1)(d) has imposed a liability on both the son and the daughter to maintain their parents
who are unable to maintain themselves.

1.6 OTHER CITATIONS

Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi6 , has been referred to in the present case.
It was upheld by the court in this case that clause (d) has used the expression 'his father or
mother' but, the use of the word 'his' does not exclude the parents claiming maintenance from
their daughter.
The court has also referred to the Kerala High Courts Judgment in M. Areefa Beevi vs. DR. K.M.
Sahib7 read that,
6 [1975] 2 SCC 386
7 (1983 CriLJ 412)
8

Section 2(y) of the code (CrPC) says: Words and expressions used herein and not defined but
defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) have the meanings respectively assigned to them in
that Code.
So, we have to refer to the Indian Penal Code. Section 8 of IPC reads: The pronoun 'he' and its
derivatives are used for any person, whether male or female.
Therefore the expression, his father or mother occurring in the Section 125 of CrPC must be
taken to have the meaning of her father or mother.

2.7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

1. Through the analysis of the facts and judgment at hand we comprehend that apart from any law,
the Indian society casts a duty on the children of a person to maintain their parents if they are not
in a position to maintain themselves. It is also their duty to look after their parents when they
become old and infirm.
2. The legislature in enacting Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 thought it wise to provide for the
maintenance of the parents of a person when such parents are unable to maintain themselves. The
purpose of such enactment was to enforce social obligation and and there is no reason for which
the daughter should be excluded from such obligation to maintain her parents.
3. Hence, the courts met the ends of justice by giving a wide interpretation to the word his used
in the provision, to include her, to avoid any unjust or restrictive meaning to be given to the
phrase and in order to discover Parliaments intention in formulating the rule.

CHAPTER 3:
ADOPTIVE MOTHER CAN CLAIM MAINTAINANCE

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE

In the present case, the question that aroused in the petition filed by the opponent was whether the
expression mother used in the section 125(1)(d) of CrPC, 1973 includes adoptive mother as
well. The court is of the view that it is not necessary that the expression should be taken in its
restrictive sense, and therefore while interpreting such expressions which have not been defined,
the court has to look into the context in which it is used. The Golden Rule, which is a form of
Statutory Interpretation which alows the judge to depart from a words normal meaning in order
to avoid an absurd result has been used by the court.
Name of the Case and Details-

BABAN ALIAS MADHAV DAGADU DANGE VS PARVATIBAI DAGADU DANGE, 1978

Equivalent citations: (1978) 80 BOMLR 305
Bench: Apte, Sapre (J)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
PETITIONER:
BABAN ALIAS MADHAV DAGADU DANGE
VS.
RESPONDENT:
PARVATHIBAI DAGADU DANGE

3.2 FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Petitioner was adopted as a son by respondent no.1 N 1948, after the death of her husband.
The respondent filed an application under Section 125 f the Code for monthly allowance by way
of maintenance on the allegation that her adopted son, had neglected and refused to maintain her
although on adoption he had secured substantial property in his adoptive family and was,
therefore, possessed of sufficient means. The Petitioner resisted the application on one principal
contention that the respondent being adoptive mother was not entitled to claim maintenance under
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Judicial Magistrate before whom the original
application was filed as well as the Sessions Judge, before whom the present petitioner in revision
took the matter, rejected this contention.
10

3.3 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

1. The Petitioner raised various contentions, all of which are not relevant for the purpose of this
study. The main argument what was contended was that under the section 125 CrPC it is only
the natural mother, who can claim maintenance from her natural son but not the adoptive
mother from her adopted son.
2. The counsel of the Petitioner therefore urged that the Legislature intended that the expression
"mother" should be construed according to its dictionary meaning only, and this omission on
the part of the Legislature cannot be said to be merely accidental but is deliberate.
3. In this connection he pointed out that though the expressions "father" and "son" have
respectively been defined in Sections 3(20) and 3(57) in the General Clauses Act, the
expression "mother" has not been defined in that Act.

3.4 ISSUE:
1. Whether the expression mother in Section 125 of the Code includes an adoptive mother.
2. Whether Section 125 contemplates a vicarious relationship between the son and the mother.

3.5 JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT:

The court held that:
1. Since on adoption, all the ties of an adopted son from his natural family are severed and are
replaced by similar ties in the adoptive family, the adoptive parents stand in the position of the
parents to the adoptive child. The adopted son after the adoption would look to his adoptive
'father' as a father and to adoptive mother as a 'mother'. Hence serving the purpose of Social
Justice.
2. The adoptive mother becomes a female parent and would therefore be a mother of the adoptive
son within the meaning of that expression as given in the Oxford English Dictionary also. The
meaning of mother as a female parent or a woman who has given birth to a child. It also
says that mother also means a woman who exercises control like that of a mother, or who is
looked up to as a mother8.
3. The contention of the petitioner will not hold strong grounds even if it is assumed that the
dictionary meaning should be given to the expression mother under the Websters New
International Dictionary, since meaning of the word mother has been given as a woman who
has
8 The Oxford English Dictionary vol. VI, L-M, edn. 1961 at pages 690 and 691
11

given birth to a child, a female parent & adoptive mother 9. In this statement, the court has
explained the expression by application of the Literal Rule of Statutory Interpretation also.
4. It was pointed out that according to the definitions given in the General Clauses Act, the
expression "father" includes both natural as well as adoptive father and the expression "son"
also includes both natural born son as well as an adopted son.
Section 3(20) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, defines the expression "father" as follows:
'father', in the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption shall include an adoptive
father. The expression "son" is defined in Section 3(57) as follows: 'son', in the case of any one
whose personal law permits adoption, shall include an adopted son.
So even if the General Clauses Act has not defined the expression mother the definition of
the expressions father and son in the General Clauses Act would furnish a clue to the
interpretation of the term mother which has been left undefined in that Act, and hence
applying the principles of Golden Rule of Interpretation.

3.5 OTHER CITATIONS:

1. The petitioner, in support of his argument that no extended meaning can be given to an
expression "mother", relied upon Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Parson Tools & Plants,
Kanpur case. The question that arose in that case was, however quite different. Hence, in
connection with that point, the Supreme Court observed in the present case that:
If the legislature willfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous law in a
subsequent statute, or even if there is a casus omissus in a statute, the language of which is
otherwise plain and unambiguous, the Court is not competent to supply the omission by
engrafting on it or introducing in it, under the guise of interpretation by analogy or
implication, something what it thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity10.
Whereas the Bombay High Court was of the view that these observations had no bearing n
the question which is being called to decide upon n the present case.

9 Webster's Third New International Dictionary, vol. II L-Z edn. 1971 at page 1474
10 The Commissioner Of Sales Tax, vs Parson Tools And Plants, Kanpur on 27 February, AIR 1975 1039, 1975 SCC (4) 22
12

2. The petitioner again brought the attention of the court to a decision of a single Judge of the
Bombay High Court in Ramabai v. Dinesh11 in which it was held that the expression
"mother" in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did not include "a step
mother". It was argued by him that on a same line of reasoning that expression would not
include an "adoptive mother".

But the court made an important distinction in this respect that the case deals with a position of a
step mother and not that of an adoptive mother. There is a difference between the position of a
step mother and that of an adoptive mother. Besides, the facts of that case were peculiar, where
the step mother claimed maintenance from her step son although she herself had a natural born
son in the same family.

3.6 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

Departing from the Rule of Liberal Interpretation, to give meaning to the word mother, the
court has expounded that the expression cannot be necessarily taken in its restrictive sense. Since
the word father according to the definition in General Clauses Act includes adoptive father, it
would mean that an adoptive father can claim maintenance from his adoptive son under Section
125 of the Code, but not the adoptive mother in going by the strict sense. But the court held that
even an adoptive mother is in a position to claim maintenance under the provision of the section.
Hence, in applying the Golden Rule of Statutory Interpretation, the judge has come into a
compromise between the plain meaning and the mischief rule, serving justly the principles of
welfare and justice.

11 [1976] Mh. L.J. 565

13

CHAPTER 4:
FULFILMENT OF PARENTAL OBLIGATION IS A NOT A PRECONDITION TO CLAIM MAINTENANCE

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE

In the present case, a question as to whether fulfillment of parental duty is a pre-condition to
claim maintenance has been answered. Wherein, a father brought an application under Section
125 of CrPC before the court claiming that he was entitled to maintenance allowance from the
present petitioner (his son) because he had no source of income and on account of old age and
physical infirmity, and he was not able to earn any living, was a sufficient cause for claiming
maintenance. The court followed the Rule of Literal Interpretation in formulating that where the
language of the statute is clear and plain, no additional meaning shall be attached to it. The
cardinal rule is to be followed, to construe provisions Literally and grammatically giving the
words their ordinary and natural meaning. Hence, a pre condition, when not specifically
mentioned, cannot be attached to the provision under the Section.
Name of the Case and Details:
PANDURANG BHAURAO DABHADE VS BABURAO BABURAO DABJADE AND ANOTHER,
1979

Equivalent Citation: (1980) 82 BOMLR 116, 1980 CriLJ 256

Bench: M Chandurkar, P Sawant
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
PETITIONER:
PANDURANG BHAURAO DABHADE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BABURAO DABJADE (FATHER)

4.2 FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The petitioner is a well placed person in the employment of the Central Government in
the Customs Department and his total monthly salary is about Rs. 1200/- per month. The
respondent is the father of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he and his younger
brother was brought up firstly by the maternal grand father and then by their aunt, that
14

is, the sister of respondent No. 1.

2. The petition12 was brought under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
challenging an order made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 9th Court, Pune,
directing the present petitioner in a proceeding under section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, to pay an amount of Rs. 75/- per month by way of maintenance to
respondent No. 1 who is the father of the petitioner. The main ground on which the
application was contested by the petitioner was that the father having failed to fulfill his
parental obligation of bringing up the petitioner, cannot not get any right now to claim
maintenance.

4.3 CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

1. It was vehemently contended by the petitioner that the court must read into the scheme of
section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the implication that only that
father or mother would be entitled to claim maintenance from their son, who had during the
minority of the son taken proper care of the son and had brought him up.
2. The petitioner brought evidence on record to show that after the death of the mother of the
present petitioner, the petitioner was left entirely uncared for by the father who had married for
the second time and that the petitioner was brought up and educated initially by his maternal
grand father and then by his aunt, and hence, the father does not have a right to claim
maintenance from him.
3. The petitioner contends that the provision under Section 125(1)(d) was sought to be defeated
on the ground that the father having failed to fulfill his parental obligation of bringing up the
petitioner, did not get any right now to claim maintenance and throw the responsibility of
maintaining him on the petitioner.

4.4 ISSUE
1. Whether fulfillment of Parental Obligation is a Pre Condition to claim maintenance under
Section 125, CrPC.
2. By interpretation can a different construction be given to the words of the statute, in order to
derive a different meaning from it?
12 https://criminallawyersindia.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/inherent-power-of-high-court-under-section-482-of-crpc/
15

4.5 JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

1. The court was of the view that it is not possible to read anything more in section 125(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure than what is warranted by the plain meaning of the words used by
the Parliament in enacting section 125. Hence, following the rule of Literal Interpretation.

2. Giving a plain meaning to the language used in section 125(1) 13 and to the provisions relating
to the father and mother in Clause (d) thereof, the only two circumstances which have to be
met for the purpose of deciding a claim under section 125(1) appear to be that, Firstly, the
father or mother must be unable to maintain himself or herself and secondly, the person against
whom an order under section 125(1) is sought must have sufficient means to maintain the
father or mother and yet neglects or refuses to maintain the father or mother.
3. It appears, therefore, clearly that since the father in the instant case has been found unable to
maintain himself and the petitioner who is a son is fairly well placed and is refusing to
maintain him, the father was entitled to an order for maintenance under section 125(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The court was also appropriate in considering that the provisions of section 125(1), do not
contemplate that the obligation to maintain an aged, infirm parent who is unable to maintain
himself or herself can be enforced only if it is preceded by the fulfilment of the parental
obligation to maintain and bring up the children during the childhood of the children.
5. The argument which was advanced before the court stems more from amoral indignation at
being required to maintain a father who has not cared for the children during the time when he
should have done so. However, effect must be given to the intention of the legislature which
must be found from the words of section 125(1) alone and the petitioner cannot ask to be
relieved form the said statutory obligation on any moral considerations.
6. The judges referred to the relevant part of report of the Joint Committee of Parliament in
formulating the provision where it was observed that:
The Committee considers that the right of the parents not possessed of sufficient means, to be
maintained by their son should be recognised by making provision that where the father or
mother is unable to maintain himself or herself, the order for payment of maintenance may be
13 CrPC, Section 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents, (as refred under Chapter 1, 1.2)
16

directed to a son who is possessed by sufficient means. If there are two or more children, the
parents may seek the remedy against any one or more of them.

4.6 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

1. From an in depth analysis of the case, and the ratio decided by the court, it is clear to the
researcher that, according to the plain meaning rule, in absence of a contrary definition
within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the
words are clear, they must be applied in the manner said.

2. The statutory obligation cast under section 125(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, to maintain parent who are unable to maintain themselves is absolute and it was not
dependent on whether the parents had or had not discharged their obligation towards the
son.

3. And hence, effect must be given to the intention of the legislature which must be found
from the words of section 125(1) alone and the petitioner cannot ask to be relieved form
the said statutory obligation on any moral considerations, aptly following the rule of
Literal Interpretation where the Judiciary has to contemplate what is the Law is, and not
what it ought to be.

17

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 BRIEF OF ALL THE CHAPTERS

5.2 CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCHER
5.3 SUGGESTIONS BASED ON FINDING

18

LIST OF CASES

Baban Alias Madhav Dagadu Dange vs Parvatibai Dagadu Dange, (1978) 80

BOMLR 305
Bahiram v. Nathu, 1960 Cr.L.J. 1376
Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi and Anr, [1975] 2 SCC 386
Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamladevi and another, AIR 1975 SC 83 at p.85.
Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai And Another,

AIR 1987 SC 110

Kanniappan .M v. Akilandammal, AIR 1954 Mad 427.
M. Areefa Beevi vs. DR. K.M. Sahib, 1983 CriLJ 412.
Pandurang Bhaurao Dabhade vs Baburao Baburao Dabjade and another, 1979
AIR 82 BOMLR 116, 1980 crilj 256
Ramabai v. Dinesh, [1976] Mh. L.J. 565
The Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... vs Parson Tools And Plants, Kanpur, AIR
1975 1039, 1975 SCC (4) 22

19

ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF STATUTES

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

General Clauses Act, 1897
Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860)
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

21