A division bench, led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, dismissed the petition of a Bhopal resident, Dileep Marmath. Marmath had been asked to vacate his father-in-law’s house after he stopped providing money for his father-in-law’s maintenance.
Bhopal/Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declared that a son-in-law is included under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This law requires children to take care of their elderly parents, and the court’s decision makes it clear that even a son-in-law has this responsibility.
A division bench, led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, dismissed the petition of a Bhopal resident, Dileep Marmath. Marmath had been asked to vacate his father-in-law’s house after he stopped providing money for his father-in-law’s maintenance.
Background
The case began when Narayan Verma, a 78-year-old retired employee of BHEL, filed a case in the subdivisional magistrate (SDM) court under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. This law is intended to ensure elderly parents receive proper care and financial support from their children. The SDM court ordered Marmath to leave the house after Verma claimed that his son-in-law had stopped supporting him financially.
Marmath, who did not agree with this decision, appealed to the district magistrate. However, the district magistrate rejected his appeal, prompting Marmath to move the High Court.
In his petition to the High Court, Marmath argued that a son-in-law is not covered by the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Additionally, he claimed that he had contributed Rs 10 lakh towards building his father-in-law’s house. Marmath presented a bank statement in court to support this claim.
During the hearing, the court found that Verma had allowed Marmath and his daughter, Jyoti, to live in his house on the condition that they would take care of him. However, in 2018, tragedy struck when Jyoti passed away in a road accident. Marmath remarried shortly after and stopped giving any money to his father-in-law for maintenance.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | “Divorced Muslim Woman can Claim Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC”: SC
The division bench of the High Court ruled that the father-in-law, Verma, has the right to file a suit against Marmath to ask him to vacate the house. The court noted that the house had not been transferred to Marmath’s name. Verma, who receives a pension from his Provident Fund, also needs financial assistance to care for his sick wife and children. The court observed that the house could be used to support his family.
With this, the High Court upheld the decision of the SDM court and dismissed Marmath’s petition, confirming the order for him to vacate the house.
