Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

Holding that law, religion and customs mandate sons to look after their parents, the Karnataka High Court has said that if an able bodied person is bound to maintain his dependent wife, there is no reason why such a rule should not apply when it comes to the case of a dependent mother. 

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit copiously quoted scriptures and religious texts to highlight the tradition, practised here for centuries, to take care of parents, and more particularly the aged mother.

"This has been the tradition of this land since centuries. With no joy in heart, this court observes that nowadays, a section of youngsters is failing to look after the aged and ailing parents and the number is swelling. This is not a happy development," the bench said.

The court rejected a writ petition filed by two sons of an 84-year-old woman against the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner to them to pay Rs 10,000 each on May 25, 2022 under a socio-welfare legislation namely Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The petitioners contended that they had no sufficient means to provide the money and that their mother should be asked to join their homes as her plea lacked bona fide and was filed at the instance of her daughters.

The court, however, said the argument that petitioners do not have means to pay, is too poor a justification for not looking after the aged and ailing mother, especially when it is not their case that they are not able bodied or diseased.

"If an able bodied person is bound to maintain his dependent wife, there is no reason why such a rule should not apply when it comes to the case of a dependent mother," the bench said.

The court also noted that the petitioners showed culpable conduct by suppressing the facts of their true income from the authorities.

It also rejected their contention that they are ready and willing to look after their mother and therefore she should be directed to join them, as "neither legally sustainable nor factually desirable". 

After looking at the weak and frail condition of the woman, the bench said, "Law of marriage generally provides for restitution of conjugal rights qua the deserting spouse, is true. No law or ruling of the kind is cited at the Bar that the unwilling parents can be forced to reside with their children. Such a contention is incongruous and abhorrent to our culture and tradition, to say the least."

It also pointed out absolutely no material is produced by the petitioners to substantiate their allegation that the mother is being manipulated by her daughters. 

“It is not that the daughters want any share in the family property. It is they who have been looking after the mother abandoned by the sons. But for them, she would have been on the streets. The gestures shown by the daughters merits a deep appreciation at the hands of this court,” the bench added.

With regard to the contention that the amount of Rs10,000 is much on the higher side, the bench said "This is simply liable to be rejected. We are living in an age when bread is costlier than blood. Money is loosing its purchasing power; days are proving very costly; a sum of Rs 10,000 by any measure can be said to be excess; in fact, such a sum falls short of the ‘living wages’ of an unskilled workman. To hold body and soul together, more than that sum is necessary. However, this court very reluctantly abstains from revising it upwardly, there being no such prayer from the side of mother."

The court also pointed out the 2007 Act was enacted by the Parliament for protecting the interest of senior citizens who are in a hapless position.

It said that the general proposition in the law of appeals, which owed its origin to the colonial era, cannot be invoked in a social welfare legislation meant for protection of the parents.

In its order, the bench also cited 'Smrutikaaraas' which say: ‘rakshanti sthavire putra’ nearly meaning that it is the duty of son to look after his mother who is in the evening of her life. 

"In an ancient scripture of India entitled “Taittiriya Upaniṣad”, it is said that when a student on graduation is leaving the Gurukula (school/college), the guru/teacher gives him the parting message as under: 

“May you be one for whom his mother is a Deva. 
May you be one for whom his father is a Deva. 
May you be one for whom a guest is a Deva. 
May you be one for whom his teacher is a Deva.” 

Similarly, the Brahmanda Purana says to neglect the parents, particularly in their old age, when they become weak and dependent and to cause anguish, is a heinousact for which there is no atonement available. The virtuous idea is that one should respect and serve one’s parents, guests and gurus, before one worships the Almighty, the bench said.

Case Title: Sri Gopal & Anr Vs Deputy Commissioner and others