The Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that the duty to provide maintenance to parents is not dependent on the amount of property given to children; children are obligated to support their parents.
The Court was reviewing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, requesting a Writ of Certiorari to annul the order making the Petitioner liable for maintenance payments, and a Writ of Mandamus directing that the maintenance for Smt. Hakki Bai’s livelihood be recovered from her three sons.
The bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “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.”
Advocate Brijendra Swaroop Sahu appeared on behalf of the Appellant, while Government Advocate Mohan Sausarkar represented the Respondent.
The Petitioner challenged the orders issued by the Additional Collector and SDO under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Respondent, Smt. Hakki Bai, had filed an application under Section 16 of the Act, claiming that her sons, including the Petitioner, had agreed to support her after she transferred her land to them through separate sale deeds. The Petitioner argued that his mother did not transfer any land to him and that he lacked the financial means to pay the maintenance, asking the Court to set aside the SDO’s order.
The Court remarked that if an individual is unhappy with the unequal distribution of land, they have the option to file a Civil Suit; however, this does not exempt them from their obligation to provide maintenance to their mother.
As a result, the Court affirmed that the lower courts were justified in ordering Smt. Hakki Bai’s sons to pay her maintenance.
The Petition was ultimately dismissed by the Court.
