Law, Religion & Custom Mandate Sons To Look After Their Parents: Karnataka HC In Petition Challenging Maintenance To Mother

The Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit held that “The virtuous idea is that one should respect & serve one’s parents, guests & gurus, before one worships the Almighty. This has been the tradition of this land since centuries. With no joy in heart, this Court observes that nowadays, a section of youngsters is failing to look after the aged & ailing parents and the number is swelling. This is not a happy development.”

The Court further added that “if an able-bodied person is bound to maintain his dependent wife, there is no reason why such a rule should not apply when it comes to the case of a dependent mother.”

Advocate K.R. Lingaraju appeared for the Petitioner while AGA Rashmi Patel appeared for the Respondents.

In this case, the Petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 by the Assistant Commissioner. This payment was enhanced further to Rs. 10,000 by the District Commissioner under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Petitioner challenged the order of the District Commissioner on the ground that it is a financial burden on the Petitioner and injustice. The Court noted that the Petitioner owned 3 rental properties earning him good income to support his mother financially.

The Court after a careful examination of all the facts and circumstance held that “Law, religion & custom mandate sons to look after their parents, and more particularly aged mother. Smrutikaaraas say: ‘rakshanti sthavire putra …’ nearly meaning that it is the duty of son to look after his mother who is in the evening of her life.”

Further, the Court added that “The argument that Petitioners do not have means to pay, is too poor a justification for not looking after the aged & ailing mother, especially when it is not their case that they are not able bodied or diseased. This Court saw the mother Smt.Venkatamma, who is absolutely illiterate and who has a fragile health condition; she is aged about 84 years, as admitted in the Petition itself. Her eyesight is considerably diminished. Law of marriage generally provides for restitution of conjugal rights qua the deserting spouse, is true. No law or ruling of the kind is cited at the Bar that the unwilling parents can be forced to reside with their children. Such a contention is incongruous and abhorrent to our culture & tradition, to say the least.”

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Petition and imposed costs of Rs 5,000 to be paid by the Petitioner to his mother.

Cause Title: Gopal & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District & Ors.

Click here to read/download judgment