Question Of Paying Maintenance To Parents Doesn't Depend On How Much Property Has Been Given To Children: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the question of a child paying maintenance to their parents does not depend on how much property was given to the child by the parents and that it is the duty of children to maintain their parents.

A bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was dealing with a writ petition challenging a maintenance order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Petitioner contended that he was not liable to provide maintenance to his mother since not a single piece of land was given to him by his mother.

Justice Ahluwalia, while adjudicating on the matter stated that it is the duty of the children to maintain their parents and providing maintenance to parents is not dependent on how much property is given to them. He held:

“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 further considered the rising cost of living and inflation, deeming the Rs. 8,000 monthly maintenance fair and reasonable. “Considering the price index as well as price of the goods of daily needs, this Court is of considered opinion that monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to be paid in equal share by all her four sons cannot be said to be on higher side.”

The High Court thus dismissed the petition affirming the previous orders requiring the petitioner and his brothers to contribute to their mother's maintenance.

Background

In the present case, the petitioner sought relief against an order mandating him and his brothers to pay their mother, Smt. Hakki Bai, Rs. 2,000 each per month. The petitioner argued that since his mother had not given him any share of her land, he should not be liable for maintenance.

He cited his financial incapacity to support her. However, the court rejected this argument, reiterating that the duty to provide maintenance does not depend on property distribution.

Smt. Hakki Bai had filed an application under Section 16 of Act, 2007 against the petitioner and her other sons, stating that she had distributed the land to her sons by executing separate sale deeds and thus her sons promised to maintain her.

It was stated that later, they were not making any payment towards the same. In a previous ruling, the SDO Tribunal had initially ordered all four sons to pay a total of Rs. 12,000 per month, split equally at Rs. 3,000 each. However, this was reduced to Rs. 8,000, with each son required to pay Rs. 2,000.

Despite this reduction, the petitioner continued to challenge the order, claiming injustice due to the unequal land distribution by his mother.

Case Title: Govind Lodhi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 214

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.25471 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order