Rakia Imran
On 25th February, 2025, a Single-Bench comprising Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri of the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently condemned a man’s petition challenging a ₹5,000 maintenance award for his 77-year-old mother, calling it shocking. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri not only dismissed his plea but also ordered him to pay ₹50,000 as costs, directing that the amount be deposited in his mother’s name with the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Sangrur within three months.
“It is a classic example of Kalyug which is reflected from the present case which has shaken the conscience of this Court. There is no illegality in the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family court, and rather it will not be out of place to mention that even the amount of Rs.5,000/- was on the lower side, although no separate petition has been filed by the respondent widow for enhancement”, the Court said.
After losing her husband in 1992, the elderly woman, now 77, was left with a son and a married daughter. Her other son had passed away, leaving behind his widow and two children. Upon her husband’s death, the family’s 50-bigha land was inherited by her surviving son and the grandsons from her deceased son. In 1993, she was awarded ₹1 lakh for her past, present, and future sustenance, which was meant to ensure her financial stability. Later, she moved in with her daughter, who provided her with shelter, emotional support, and care. Opposing the ₹5,000 maintenance order, her son contended that since she did not reside with him, the family court was not justified in passing such an order and that he should not be made liable for her expenses, as she had already received financial assistance in the past and had alternative means of support.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the elderly mother argued that she had no independent source of income and was entirely dependent on her daughter for survival, as she had no other means to sustain herself. Given her financial vulnerability, she was compelled to live under her daughter’s care, having no alternative for support. Taking note of her situation, the Court described it as an unfortunate case and stated that once it was established that the elderly woman had no income of her own, her son had no legitimate grounds to challenge the maintenance order through a petition.
“It actually shocks the conscience of this Court whereby the son has chosen to file the present petition against his own mother challenging fixation of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- although he succeeded the property of his father and the old age mother of 77 years does not have any source of income and has been living with her daughter who is married and is staying in her matrimonial home”, the Court said as it dismissed the plea.
Advocates SS Brar and Neha represented the petitioner.
Advocate Vishal Satija represented the respondent.