If An Able Bodied Person Is Bound To Maintain His Wife, Why Not Dependent Mother? Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the sons of an aged woman against an order of the Deputy Commissioner that directed them to pay her maintenance amount of Rs 10,000, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

A Single judge bench of Justice Krishan S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Gopal and others who questioned the order directing them to pay Rs 10,000 to their 84-year-old mother who is residing with their sister.

“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. An argument to the contra falls foul of law & religion, to which the Petitioners belong.”

Quoting a shloka from the Brahmanda Purana the bench said, “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,” it added.

The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 22-05-2019 had increased the maintenance amount awarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000.

It was argued the appellants cannot be worse off in their own appeal and therefore the Appellate order is liable to be voided.

The bench said, “such a general proposition obtaining in the realm of law of appeals is not invocable in cases arising from socio-welfare legislations like 2007 Act, which is enacted by the Parliament for protecting the interest of senior citizens who are in a hapless position.”

“Such a traditional norm that owes its origin to the jurisprudence of Colonial Era cannot be readily invoked to defeat the intent of the statute. It hardly needs to be stated that in effectuating the Parliamentary intent, the authorities are also stakeholders along with the parties to the lis,” it added.

Rejecting the contention of petitioner that they do not have means to look after their mother, the bench said the argument 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.

“The first Petitioner on being specifically asked, admitted in the open Court that he owns three shop premises and has been receiving Rs.10,000 by way of monthly rent. The mother who too present in the Court along with daughters at once retorts that the rental income is far more than Rs.20,000. The Petitioners have not produced the rental agreements to demonstrate their assertion. Added, they have suppressed their rental income from the authorities who have made the impugned orders,” it said.

The court said such culpable conduct of the Petitioners disentitles them to any relief in the equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, "the other provision namely Article 226 having been mindlessly employed in their pleadings.”

The petitioner had submitted that they are ready & willing to look after their mother and therefore she should be directed to join them. Further it was alleged that the mother is being manipulated by her daughters.

“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,” said the court.

It added: “ It is not that the daughters want any share in the family property. It is they who have been looking after the mother abandoned by the sons. But for them, she would have been on the streets. The gestures shown by the daughters merits a deep appreciation at the hands of this Court.”

The court said we are living in an age when bread is costlier than blood and ,oney is losing its purchasing power. "Days are proving very costly; a sum of Rs.10,000, by any measure can be said to be excess; in fact, such a sum falls short of the ‘living wages’ of an unskilled workman. To hold body & soul together, more than that sum is necessary," it added.

Accordingly it dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on the petitioners to be paid to the mother in 30-days, failing which they are liable to pay an additional levy of Rs.100/- per day.

Case Title: Gopal & ANR And The Deputy Commissioner & Others

Case No: Writ Petition no. 13182 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

Date of Order: 12-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate K R Lingaraju for Petitioners

AGA Rashmi Patel for R1, R2

Advocate K S Karthik Kiran for Advocate Kapil Dixit for R3

Click Here To Read/Download Order