The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a woman seeking to make her stepson jointly liable for her maintenance after a Family Court had already directed her biological son to pay her ₹8,000 per month. The Court held that once the legally enforceable maintenance awarded by the Family Court is being paid by the real son, there is no legal basis to impose the same liability on the stepson.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a challenge to the Family Court's order dated May 15, 2025, which directed the woman's biological son to pay her monthly maintenance of ₹8,000 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now reflected under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita framework for future proceedings). Dissatisfied with the order, the woman approached the High Court, arguing that her stepson should also be made equally responsible for paying maintenance merely because he was also a son of her late husband.
The stepson opposed the revision, contending that where the woman's biological son, who has sufficient means, is already maintaining her, there is no legal obligation to fasten the same liability upon a stepson.
Court's Observations
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla examined the scope of Section 125 CrPC governing maintenance to parents and noted that the court must determine both the relationship between the parties and whether the claimant is unable to maintain herself. The Court also emphasized that maintenance can only be directed against a person who is legally liable and has sufficient means.
Referring to the facts of the case, the Court observed that the woman was the biological mother of one respondent and the stepmother of the other. It further noted that the biological son had accepted the Family Court's maintenance order and had not challenged it.
The bench observed,
"After the order of the trial court... the revisionist is capable to maintain herself getting the maintenance amount from her real son, so now she has lost her status of incapability to maintain herself."
The Court further clarified that where more than one person may owe a duty of maintenance, it is for the court to decide who should pay and to what extent. Once a valid maintenance order has already secured support for the claimant, another independent claim for the same purpose cannot ordinarily be sustained.
Court's Decision
Finding no legal merit in the woman's plea, the High Court held that the revision had been filed without any substantive legal basis and merely sought to harass the stepson.
The bench observed,
"The present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed."
Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed, leaving the Family Court's maintenance order against the biological son unchanged.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Kusum v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 4112 of 2025
Judge: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
Decision Date: July 14, 2026
