The Kerala High Court held that a woman’s right to maintenance from her son is independent of her husband’s obligation. The Court ordered a Gulf-based son to pay Rs 5,000 monthly to his 60-year-old mother despite her husband providing support.
The Kerala High Court recently gave a significant ruling, saying that a woman can claim maintenance from her son even if her husband is alive and already providing for her.
The decision came in the case of Farookh vs Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja, where Justice Kauser Edappagath made it clear that a son’s responsibility to look after his aged mother is not just a moral duty but a legal one as well.
The Court said that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — a judicial magistrate has the power to order maintenance for a wife, children, or parents who are unable to take care of themselves.
Justice Edappagath clarified that a mother’s right to receive maintenance from her children is independent of her husband’s obligation. Even if the husband is alive and capable of maintaining her, it does not take away the son’s legal responsibility to support her.
The Court stated,
“In other words, the right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her. A mother can claim maintenance from her children even if her husband is maintaining her, and the son can be legally required to contribute if the mother is unable to maintain herself and the husband is not providing sufficient support. The fact that the husband of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the son of his independent statutory obligation under Section 144(1)(d) of BNSS (Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C.) to support his mother if she needs it.”
The judge further explained that this provision is not just a procedural law but
“a measure of social justice which ensures that those with sufficient means must maintain dependents unable to support themselves.”
This observation came while the Court was hearing a petition filed by a man who had challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance to his 60-year-old mother.
The mother had approached the Family Court earlier, seeking Rs 25,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC. After hearing the case, the Family Court granted her Rs 5,000 per month, which the son later challenged in the High Court.
The son, who works in the Gulf, argued that his mother was earning money by rearing cattle and therefore did not need maintenance.
He also said that since her husband, a fisherman owning a boat, was already providing for her, she could not legally demand maintenance from him as well.
However, the High Court rejected all these arguments. It said that it was both
“unfortunate and inappropriate for an affluent son to tell his aged mother to earn her livelihood by rearing cattle.”
The Court added,
“Expecting a sexagenarian mother to perform such labour highlights significant moral failure on the part of the son and disregard for the mother’s well-being and dignity. This scenario typically implies a lack of care, support, and respect for an elderly parent who likely depends on or deserves the support of her wealthy child.”
The judge also pointed out that there was no proof that the mother had any income from rearing cattle or any other source.
The son further tried to justify himself by saying he had to maintain his wife and child. But the Court firmly rejected that argument too, stating that a son cannot escape his legal duty to maintain his parents merely because he has a family of his own.
After reviewing all the facts and evidence, the Kerala High Court decided not to interfere with the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the revision petition, confirming the maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month to the mother.
The son was represented by advocates Jamsheed Hafiz and TS Sreekutty.
This judgment reinforces the legal and moral principle that taking care of aged parents is a shared duty of all children, regardless of the presence or financial status of the other parent.
It underlines the Court’s message that every capable son or daughter must support their elderly parents and cannot escape this obligation on technical or financial excuses.
Case Title:
Farookh vs Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja
Read More Reports On Maintenance
