Summary of this article
The Allahabad High Court held that once a claimant is already receiving adequate maintenance through a judicial order, a second maintenance claim from another relative cannot be made.
In this case, the court upheld maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month from the biological son and removed the stepson from liability.
The court said Section 125 CrPC is meant to prevent destitution, not to create multiple income sources from different family members.
The Allahabad High Court recently deliberated on whether a stepmother can legally demand maintenance from a stepson when her biological son is already providing support. Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla said that once a claimant’s financial needs are met through a judicial order, their status of ‘inability to maintain’ effectively terminates. When maintenance is ordered and served, further claims against other family members and relatives cannot be made.
The court clarified that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been designed as a tool for social justice to prevent parents, wives, and children from falling into destitution if they are not able to maintain themselves. However, this provision is not intended to provide a person with a redundant source of income from multiple family members.
Case Background
The mother (claimant) approached the Allahabad High Court to challenge a trial court order passed in May, 2025. In the original proceedings, the trial court partially allowed her application in which she sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The trial court directed her biological son (opposite party no. 3) to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 8,000, and discharged her stepson (opposite party no. 2) from any financial liability.
The woman contested this decision in the High Court, labelling it as arbitrary and illegal, and sought that her maintenance liability be shared by both her sons.
Arguments
The claimant’s counsel argued that the trial court made an error by exempting the stepson solely based on the status that he is her non-biological child. The counsel contended that the maintenance liability should be modified to include her stepson alongside the biological son.
On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) and the counsel for the stepson opposed the revision. They argued that since the biological son has sufficient means and has already accepted the court’s order to maintain his mother, there was no legal ground to penalise the stepson. They called it a malicious attempt to harass the stepson rather than a genuine appeal for survival.
Court’s Observation
The court observed that the first requisite to grant maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was the claimant’s inability to maintain themselves. The court noted that the mother may have been unable to maintain herself at the time of making her initial application, and thus, the trial court ordered Rs 8,000 per month maintenance for her, and this amount has already addressed her needs.
The court further clarified that when a court fastens liability on one individual to provide support, the claimant’s inability to maintain herself comes to an end with the trial court’s order. It further clarified that while a claimant can choose whom to sue if there are multiple people obligated to support, it is ultimately for the court to decide the ratio and the person liable to pay the maintenance.
Court’s Judgment
The High Court found the criminal revision to be devoid of merit and upheld the trial court’s decision to limit the maintenance obligation to the biological son. It ruled that the application was filed with the intention of harassing the stepson. The court held that a person cannot claim secondary maintenance from another relative once they are already getting adequate support through a prior judicial order, and accordingly dismissed the revision petition.
