Step-mother maintenance claims fail where statutory "mother" is read narrowly despite the welfare purpose of maintenance law.

The expression "mother" in Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not defined, so it bears its ordinary meaning as the natural or female parent; a step-mother is legally distinct and is not automatically covered. Although Section 125 is to be construed liberally to prevent destitution, that approach cannot extend the clear statutory language. A childless step-mother may seek maintenance only in the limited situation recognised by the Court, where she is a widow or where her husband is incapable of maintaining her. On the facts stated, a step-mother with a living husband and natural born sons capable of support could not claim maintenance from the step-son.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "mother" in Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 includes a step-mother, and whether a step-mother can claim maintenance from her step-son under that provision.

Analysis: The expression "mother" is not defined in the Code, the General Clauses Act, or the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The ordinary and dictionary meaning of "mother" denotes the natural or female parent, whereas a step-mother is the wife of one's father by a subsequent marriage, and the two are distinct legal entities. The object of Section 125 is to prevent destitution and vagrancy through a speedy maintenance remedy, so it must receive a liberal construction, but such construction cannot override the clear legislative language. A childless step-mother may claim maintenance only in the limited situation recognised by the Court, namely where she is a widow or where her husband, if living, is incapable of maintaining her; the provision does not permit a step-mother having a living husband and natural born sons capable of support to proceed against the step-son.

Conclusion: The word "mother" in Section 125(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not include a step-mother on the facts of this case, and the respondent was not entitled to maintenance from the appellant.

---