Son’s plea against Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance for 77-year-old mother dismissed

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a son challenging a meagre monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 for his 77-year-old widowed mother. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri termed the case a “classic example of Kalyug” and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for filing a “meritless” petition that “shocked the conscience of the court”.

The petitioner had challenged an order passed by the Principal Judge of Family Court, which directed him and his sister-in-law (widow of his deceased brother) to pay Rs 5,000 each per month as maintenance to his elderly mother forced to live with her married daughter after being neglected by her sons.

The court noted that the son had inherited half of his father’s 50-bigha agricultural land, while the other half went to the children of his deceased brother. Despite this, the elderly widow was left with no source of income and was compelled to rely on her daughter for survival.

His counsel argued that an agreement was executed in 1993, under which Rs 1 lakh was paid to the mother for her “past, present, and future maintenance”. He claimed that the petitioner had already fulfilled his obligation and that his mother was now living with her daughter, absolving him of any further responsibility.

However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the payment made 32 years ago had “no significance or relevance” in determining current maintenance.

Justice Puri asserted: “The petitioner, who inherited half of his father’s property, has no moral or legal ground to deny maintenance to his aged mother, who has no source of income and is living at the mercy of her daughter.”

Justice Puri did not mince words in condemning the petitioner’s actions. “This is a classic example of Kalyug,” the bench observed, adding that the case had “shaken the conscience of the court”. The judge emphasised that the relationship between the petitioner and his mother was undisputed, and the son’s decision to challenge the maintenance order was “an abuse of the process of law.”

The court further noted that the maintenance amount of Rs 5,000 was “on the lower side” and expressed surprise that the petitioner had the audacity to challenge even this meagre sum. “It is unfortunate that a son, who has inherited his father’s property, has chosen to file such a petition against his own mother,” the court stated.