'Matru Devo Bhava': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ₹30,000 Interim Maintenance To Aged Mother, Directs Deduction From Son's Salary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld an order directing two sons to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to their aged widowed mother, while restructuring the mode of payment to ensure effective enforcement through salary deductions and auto debit from their account to mother's.

 Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, "It becomes necessary to recall that the obligation of a child to maintain his parents is not merely statutory, it is deeply rooted in our civilisational ethos. The ancient injunction of “Matru Devo Bhava” is not ornamental; it is foundational. As has been said:

"God could not be everywhere, and therefore He made mothers" and equally, “A nation that neglects its elders dims the light of its own future,” added the Court.

Mother Can't Be Left To Suffer

The judge observed that, "A mother, who nurtures her children through years of sacrifice, affection, and unwavering devotion, cannot be left to suffer neglect in the evening of her life at the hands of those whom she raised with care and dignity. The hands that once protected and nourished the children ought not to be abandoned when age and helplessness overtake the parent."

The courts can enforce payment, but they cannot legislate compassion. Yet, even within the discipline of law, there lies an expectation that children will not reduce their obligation towards their parents to a matter of litigation, it added.

The bench said, the Court cannot remain oblivious to the quite suffering of a mother and it is indeed a matter of concern that after nurturing her children, a mother is compelled to approach a Court to seek maintenance. Law intervenes where conscience fails, but it cannot substitute it. 

It highlighted that, the effective enforcement of maintenance orders lies not only in its grant, but in its timely and meaningful enforcement. There have been instances where the aged parents are often compelled to initiate successive execution proceedings, thereby suffering avoidable delay and hardships.

The revision petition was filed by two sons challenging the order of the Family Court, Bhiwani, which had awarded ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to their mother under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The respondent-mother, a widow, had approached the Court stating that she had no sufficient independent source of income. While she received ₹10,000 under the Senior Citizens Act and ₹2,500 as old-age pension, it was contended that the amount was insufficient for her sustenance and medical needs.

Justice Kalson noted that, the respondent-mother was unable to maintain herself with dignity. The sons had sufficient earning capacity, including government employment and Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, meant to prevent destitution.

The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Savitaben Sombhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, reiterating that the obligation to maintain parents flows from both legal duty and moral responsibility, independent of inheritance.

The Court found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's award of ₹30,000. It rejected the sons' plea that their liabilities should be reduced due to personal responsibilities. It emphasized that financial capacity—not inheritance—is the determining factor.

Moreover, the Court underscored: “Law intervenes where conscience fails, but it cannot substitute it.”

Mr. Bhupender Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: XXX v. XXX