This case revolves around the maintenance claim of an elderly petitioner, Unneen, who sought financial support from his sons under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Family Court of Tirur initially dismissed his plea, concluding that he had sufficient means to sustain himself. Aggrieved by the verdict, he approached the Kerala High Court through a revision petition.
Case Title: Unneen v. Shoukathali & Ors.
Court: Kerala High Court
Citation: RPFC No. 29 of 2024
Judge: Dr. Kauser Edappagath (J)
Date of Judgment: January 28, 2025
Background and Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a septuagenarian, approached the Family Court in 2018 (M.C. No. 406 of 2018) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance from his three sons. He asserted that he was unable to maintain himself and required financial assistance from his children, who were well-settled and employed in Kuwait.
The respondents, however, contested the claim on the following grounds:
The petitioner had an independent source of income.He was running a business with his brother in the Gulf and earning approximately Rs. 50,000 per month.The petitioner’s first wife had already filed M.C. No. 62 of 2018 for maintenance, where interim maintenance was granted to her.The petitioner had remarried in 2014 and was residing with his second wife.
The Family Court dismissed the case on September 27, 2023, accepting the respondents’ claim that the petitioner had sufficient means to sustain himself. Challenging this, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Kerala High Court.
Observations by the Kerala High Court
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while hearing the revision petition, made critical observations regarding the responsibilities of children towards their aged parents. The Court held that the Family Court’s ruling was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and a misappreciation of facts.
The key observations included:
Moral and Legal Duty of Sons: The Court emphasized that caring for one’s father is not just a moral obligation but also a legal duty. Children owe their parents care, respect, and financial support, especially when the parents become dependent due to old age.Well-Settled Sons in Kuwait: It was undisputed that the respondents were well-employed in Kuwait. Two of them worked as managers in a supermarket business they ran with the petitioner’s brother, and the third respondent was employed in an oil company with a monthly income exceeding Rs. 1,50,000.Lack of Evidence Supporting Independent Income: The respondents contended that the petitioner was running a business abroad and earning Rs. 50,000 per month. However, the Court found no conclusive evidence to support this claim. The bank statements (Exhibits R1 and X1) merely indicated that the petitioner’s brother had transferred money to his account until 2018. The petitioner explained that these were financial assistance from his brother rather than business profits.Reliance on Religious and Social Duties: The Court elaborated on the significance of maintaining aged parents, citing religious scriptures and cultural traditions across Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. It reiterated that failing to care for aged parents weakens societal values and obligations.
Filial duty is a fundamental obligation upheld by morality, religion, and law. Various religious texts and cultural traditions emphasize children’s responsibility, particularly sons, to care for their aged parents.
In Hinduism, the concept of Pitru Devo Bhava (Father is equivalent to God) is deeply rooted. The Manusmriti states that neglecting one’s parents is a failure of Dharma, and the Mahabharata reinforces this by teaching Yudhishthira that such neglect is among the greatest sins. The Taittiriya Upanishad (1.11.2) underscores respect for parents with the phrase, Matru Devo Bhava, Pitru Devo Bhava—”Let your mother be your God, let your father be your God.”
In Islam, the Qur’an (17:23-24) instructs believers to show kindness to parents, urging them to speak respectfully and avoid expressions of contempt. Prophet Muhammad emphasized that serving one’s parents ranks second only to worship God, as highlighted in Sahih al-Bukhari (5971): “The father is the middle gate of Paradise. So, keep this gate or lose it.”
Similar principles are echoed in Christianity and Buddhism, reinforcing the universal moral and legal duty to care for one’s parents in their old age.
Applicability of Statutory Laws
Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, children are obligated to maintain their parents.Section 125 Cr.P.C/144(1)(d) of BNSS mandates maintenance for parents who are unable to sustain themselves.
Article 51A of the Indian Constitution highlights the fundamental duty of citizens to respect and support their parents.
Reversal of the Family Court’s Judgment: Based on the above considerations, the Kerala High Court found the Family Court’s decision unsustainable. The Court held that:
The petitioner was indeed in need of financial support.The respondents, being financially well-off, were obligated to maintain their father.The Family Court had erred in denying maintenance based on mere allegations of independent income without substantive proof.The petitioner’s second marriage was irrelevant to his right to maintenance.
Judgment
The Court allowed the revision petition and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing the original petition. The Court emphasized that financial assistance from relatives or friends does not absolve the sons from their legal and moral responsibility to maintain their father.
Conclusion
This case underscores the legal and ethical obligations of children to care for their aged parents. The Kerala High Court’s decision reaffirms the protective stance of Indian law toward senior citizens, ensuring that elderly parents are not left destitute due to familial neglect. This ruling also serves as a precedent for future cases where dependent parents seek maintenance from their children under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
