Court’s decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the Family Court’s order granting monthly maintenance to the Respondent, his elderly mother, under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 125 CrPC). After examining the evidence and statutory framework, the Court upheld the Family Court’s finding that the Respondent lacked any means of livelihood and required financial support. It held that the Petitioner, being financially capable, had a statutory as well as moral duty to maintain her.
The Court rejected the Petitioner’s contentions, finding them contrary to the legislative intent behind maintenance provisions, which operate as a social justice mechanism for vulnerable dependants. The Court further observed that the son’s obligation under Section 144(1)(d) BNSS is independent of the husband’s obligation under Section 144(1)(a). The Court emphasized that a woman may seek maintenance from both, and the existence of one remedy does not extinguish the other. Accordingly, the monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 was affirmed as reasonable in view of the Petitioner’s earning capacity.
Facts
The Respondent, an elderly woman aged about sixty years, approached the Family Court seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS), stating that she had no source of income and required financial support. The Petitioner, her son, contested the claim, asserting that she was capable of maintaining herself and was being supported by her husband. After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court determined that the Respondent was unable to sustain herself and granted her monthly maintenance of ₹5,000.
Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court. He argued that the Family Court had erred in its appreciation of evidence and that he could not be compelled to pay maintenance. The High Court examined the records and heard both sides. The Court noted that the Respondent had no employment, no steady income, and was dependent on others for her survival. It also found that the Petitioner had sufficient means, being employed abroad. Consequently, the Court decided the revision petition on the legal contours of parental maintenance obligations.
Issues
- Whether a son’s obligation to maintain his mother under Section 144 BNSS is independent of the obligation of the mother’s husband.
- Whether the Family Court erred in concluding that the Respondent lacked the means to support herself.
- Whether the Petitioner could rely on alleged alternative sources of support to defeat the Respondent’s lawful claim.
- Whether the quantum of ₹5,000 per month was reasonable considering the Petitioner’s earning capacity and the Respondent’s needs.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that the Respondent was not entitled to maintenance from him because she was already being supported by her husband. He contended that her husband, being a fisherman owning a boat, had sufficient means to maintain her. He also asserted that the Respondent was engaged in cattle rearing and earning income. According to him, these circumstances negated any necessity for him to contribute financially.
He further claimed that he had his own financial responsibilities, including maintaining his wife and child. He submitted that imposing additional financial liability upon him was unreasonable. The Petitioner maintained that the Family Court misappreciated the evidence, particularly relating to the Respondent’s alleged income, and therefore the maintenance order required interference.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent denied having any income and asserted that she was wholly dependent on others for survival. She stated that she had no employment and did not engage in cattle rearing or any other form of work. She submitted that her husband, despite being alive, did not provide sufficient support and that she lacked the means to meet basic needs.
She argued that the Petitioner was earning a substantial income abroad and therefore had ample resources to maintain her. She contended that statutory obligations under Section 144 BNSS imposed a clear and independent duty on children to maintain aged parents and that the Petitioner could not avoid this responsibility by pointing to the existence of her husband. The Respondent supported the Family Court’s conclusion and sought dismissal of the revision petition.
Analysis of the law
Section 144 BNSS is a socially beneficial provision aimed at preventing destitution among vulnerable dependants such as wives, children, and elderly parents. The provision must be interpreted liberally to advance its purpose of social justice, as recognised in constitutional principles under Articles 15(3) and 39. The statute imposes liability upon persons with sufficient means to prevent hardship and ensure minimal subsistence for those unable to maintain themselves.
Importantly, Section 144(1)(d) BNSS creates an independent right for parents to claim maintenance from their children. This right is not subordinate to or conditioned upon the availability of maintenance from a spouse under Section 144(1)(a). The design of the provision reflects the moral and legal recognition that multiple sources of familial support may be necessary to prevent destitution. The High Court applied this framework to uphold the Family Court’s findings.
Precedent analysis
While the order does not cite precedent, the reasoning aligns with long-standing judicial interpretation of maintenance law, wherein courts consistently uphold the rights of elderly parents to seek support from adult children even when the spouse is alive. Courts have emphasised that statutory maintenance schemes prioritise welfare over technical objections and that financial capacity, rather than personal convenience, is the decisive factor.
The High Court’s approach reflects the established doctrine that maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and aim to ensure immediate relief rather than adjudicate complex matrimonial or property disputes.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found the Petitioner’s contentions legally unsustainable. It held that the Respondent’s right to seek maintenance from her son exists independently of her husband’s duty, and the existence of one obligation does not cancel the other. The Court also rejected the argument that the Respondent was engaged in cattle rearing, noting the complete absence of evidence. It found it unreasonable for an affluent son to expect a sixty-year-old woman to undertake physically demanding labour to survive.
The Court further observed that the Respondent had established her inability to maintain herself, while the Petitioner had failed to prove his alleged financial constraints. The maintenance amount was found reasonable and proportionate to the Petitioner’s earning capacity. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the Family Court correctly determined the Respondent’s need for maintenance and the Petitioner’s ability to provide it. The statutory framework, intended to protect vulnerable dependants, mandates that adult children with sufficient means support their aged parents. The Petitioner’s objections were found to be without merit, and the challenged order was sustained in full.
Implications
This decision reinforces the principle that maintenance for parents is not a token obligation but a substantive legal and moral duty. It clarifies that the responsibility of children is not negated by the presence or capacity of the spouse. The ruling strengthens protections under Section 144 BNSS and underscores that courts will scrutinise attempts to evade familial responsibility. It also signals to lower courts that maintenance provisions must be applied liberally to fulfil their social justice objectives.
