Question of maintenance to parents does not depend on how much property was gifted to the children: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that whether a child has to pay maintenance to his parents does not depend on the amount of property gifted to the child by the parents and that it is the duty of the children to take care of their parents.

A bank made of Judge GS Ahluwalia dealt with a writ of summons challenging a maintenance order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Elderly Persons Act, 2007. The plaintiff argued that he was not liable to pay maintenance to his mother because his mother had not given him a single piece of land.

Justice Ahluwalia stated in his decision that it is the duty of the children to provide for their parents and that the payment of maintenance to the parents is not dependent on the amount of property awarded to them. He ruled:

“The The question of paying maintenance to parents does not depend on how much property was awarded to the children. It is the duty of children to provide for their parents. If the plaintiff is disadvantaged by the unequal distribution of land, he can file a civil suit, but he cannot escape his obligation to pay maintenance to his mother..”

The court also took into account the rising cost of living and inflation and found the monthly maintenance of Rs 8,000 to be fair and reasonable.”Taking into account the price index as well as the prices of daily necessities, this Court is of the considered view that the monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000 to be paid equally by all the four sons cannot be said to be excessive.”

The High Court therefore dismissed the petition and confirmed the previous orders requiring the plaintiff and his brothers to contribute to the maintenance of their mother.

background

In the instant case, the plaintiff sought relief against an order requiring him and his brothers to pay Rs. 2,000 per month each to their mother, Smt. Hakki Bai. The plaintiff argued that he was not liable to pay maintenance as his mother had not given him any share of her land.

He claimed that he was financially unable to support her. However, the court rejected this argument and reiterated that the obligation to support her does not depend on the distribution of assets.

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

It was later stated that they had not made any payments towards it. In an earlier judgment, the SDO Tribunal had initially ordered all four sons to pay a total of Rs 12,000 per month, of which Rs 3,000 each. However, this amount was reduced to Rs 8,000, making each son pay Rs 2,000.

Despite this reduction, the plaintiff continued to challenge the order, claiming that he had suffered injustice due to the unequal distribution of land by his mother.

Case Title: Govind Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Case Number: WRITTEN PETITION No. 25471 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order