Moral Duty & Legal Obligation Of Son To Maintain Old Age Parents Even If Relatives Or Friends Are Also Financially Supporting Them: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court directed the Children to pay maintenance to their 74-year-old father.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that it is both a moral duty and legal obligation of a son to provide sustenance to his parents in their old age even if the parents are somehow managing to maintain themselves with the financial support of relatives or friends.
The Court directed the Children (Respondents) to pay maintenance to their 74-year-old father (Petitioner). The Order of the Family Court, which had rejected the Petitioner’s maintenance claim, was set aside.
A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held that “If an age-old father or mother somehow manages to maintain themselves with the financial support of relatives or friends, that will not absolve the liability of the children to provide maintenance to them. It is both a moral duty and legal obligation of the son to provide sustenance to their parents in their old age.”
Advocate CM Mohammed Iquabal appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts
The Respondents were the sons of the Petitioner from his first marriage. A Petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed seeking maintenance on the ground that the Petitioner had no means to support himself. The Family Court dismissed the Petition holding that the Petitioner had his own income to maintain himself.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court pointed out that it was an “unfortunate case” where a neglected hapless septuagenarian was ignored by his welloff male children and was constrained to knock on the door of the Court seeking maintenance for his sustenance.
“The children resisted the claim, mainly contending that the father was able to maintain himself. The Family Court, on a wrong understanding of the law and misappreciation of facts, rejected the claim, only to drag the poor father to this Court in the evening of his life,” the Bench noted.
The Court stated that the Respondents were well-employed in Kuwait and had sufficient means to maintain the Petitioner.
“Article 51A of the Indian Constitution places a fundamental duty upon every citizen to respect and take care of their parents. Neglecting aged parents is not just illegal but also against moral and social values,” the Bench explained.
The Court aslo discussed the “filial duty” as a fundamental obligation rooted in morality, religion, and law. “Society thrives when its elderly are treated with dignity and care. Neglecting an aged father not only leads to emotional distress but also weakens the very fabric of society,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The respondents who are well employed at Gulf and earning substantial income are legally and morally bound to maintain their own father, who is now aged 74 years. Hence, the impugned order declining maintenance to the petitioner is not sustainable, and accordingly, it is set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition.
Cause Title: Unneen v. Shoukathali & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:6982)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, Raihanath T.H., P.Abdul Nishad, Istinaf Abdullah, Muhammed Ameen