The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has ruled that it is the duty of children to maintain their parents and the same is not dependent on how much property the parents have given them or whether there has been an unequal distribution of property amongst children.
Justice GS Ahluwalia, presiding over the court, stated: “The question of payment of maintenance to parents is not dependent upon the fact that how much property has been given to the children. It is the duty of children to maintain their parents. If petitioner is aggrieved by unequal distribution of land, then he has remedy to file a Civil Suit but he cannot run away from his liability to make payment of maintenance to his mother.”
The court delivered the decision while dismissing a petition challenging an order that directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his mother.
The petitioner, Govind Lodhi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the maintenance order issued against him by the Additional Collector, Narsinghpur, and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Gadarwara. These orders, passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, required Lodhi and his three brothers to contribute Rs 2,000 each per month towards their mother’s maintenance.
The petitioner argued that his mother had distributed her land unevenly among her sons, with no portion allocated to him. He claimed that as a result, he should not be held liable for her maintenance. It was further emphasised that Lodhi’s financial condition did not allow him to bear the maintenance burden, and thus, the previous orders should be set aside.
On the other hand, Smt. Hakki Bai, the mother, had filed an application under Section 16 of the 2007 Act, stating that her sons had promised to support her after she executed separate sale deeds transferring land to them. Despite this, they had failed to fulfill their promise, leading to the SDO’s initial order directing the sons to pay a total of Rs 12,000 per month (Rs 3,000 from each son), which was later reduced to Rs 8,000 per month (Rs. 2,000 each).
The court made it clear that the duty of children to support their parents is not conditional upon the receipt of property from them. The court noted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the unequal distribution of land, he had the legal remedy of filing a civil suit, but this did not absolve him of his responsibility to pay maintenance.
The court further considered the current cost of living and inflation, finding that the Rs 8,000 monthly maintenance, divided equally among the four sons, was fair and reasonable. Consequently, the high court upheld the previous orders and dismissed the petition.
Comments
0 comment