S.144 BNSS | Mother Can Claim Maintenance From Children Even If Her Husband Maintains Her: Kerala High Court

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed,

“The fact that the husband of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the son of his independent statutory obligation under Section 144(1) (d) of BNSS (Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C.) to support his mother if she needs it.”

The petitioner, who is the son of the respondent-mother had challenged the order of the Family Court which granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

The mother stated that she has no employment or means to support herself, while the son denied this and argued that the mother is rearing cattle and earning enough income. It was further contended that his father is a fisherman owning a boat and is providing maintenance to her.

The Court noted that Section 144 of BNSS is a measure of social justice enacted to protect women, children and aged parents and falls within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.

The Court rejected the contention of the son that the mother cannot claim maintenance since his father provides maintenance to her, noting that the right of a mother/wife to be maintained by her children under Section 144(1)(d) of BNSS (Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C.) and by her husband under Section 144(1)(a) of BNSS (Section 125(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.) are independent and mutually exclusive.

The Court further rejected the next contention of the son that the mother is rearing cattle and is getting sufficient income from it to support herself.

“It is quite unfortunate and inappropriate for an affluent son to tell his aged mother that she should go to cattle rearing to earn her livelihood. Cattle rearing is a physically demanding work. Expecting a sexagenarian mother to perform such labour highlights significant moral failure on the part of the son and disregard for the mother's well-being and dignity.” the Court observed.

The Court considered the requirement of the mother and means of the son and observed that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was reasonable.

“Considering the requirement of the respondent and the means of the petitioner, the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) awarded by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable, if not inadequate.” Court noted

The Court thus dismissed the revision petition.

Case Title: Farookh v Kayyakutty @ Kadeeja

Case No: RPFC 375/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 731

Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Jamsheed Hafiz, T S Sreekutyy