Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2267 (KAR)

K. Jayaprakash v. N. Kuppaswamy

2020-11-17

JYOTHI MULIMANI

body2020
ORDER JYOTHI MULIMANI, J. 1. Sri. M. Ravindranath, learned counsel for petitioner has appeared through video conferencing. 2. Revision petition is posted for Admission after notice to respondents. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court. 4. The order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga in Crl. Misc. 214/2015 is called in question in this revision petition whereby, learned Judge of the Family Court has directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each per month to the petitioners 1 and 2. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in this petition. 5. Sri. Ravindranath, learned counsel submits that the order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence available on record. Next, he submitted that the order of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material evidence on record. A further submission was made that the order of maintenance is on higher side without considering the documents produced by respondent-son i.e., Ex R-1 to R-7. It has been contended that respondent has to bear the education expenses of his children and he has to repay loan. Counsel vehemently urged that petitioner's (aged parents) elder son is working in Police department and he is paying Rs. 3,000/- per month hence, respondent is not obliged and liable to pay maintenance. Lastly, it is submitted that respondent is a lorry driver and earning meager income. Therefore, he is not in a position to pay maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. Accordingly, he prayed that the revision petition may be allowed. 6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of respondent with care. The real question to be answered is whether a son can contend that he is under no obligation to maintain his aged parents? This Court may venture to say that this is an interesting case to address the question as to what filial obligations are? A continuing need for care for elderly, combined with loosely knit family structures prompt the question what filial obligations are. Do adult children of elderly have a duty to care? This Court may venture to say that this is an interesting case to address the question as to what filial obligations are? A continuing need for care for elderly, combined with loosely knit family structures prompt the question what filial obligations are. Do adult children of elderly have a duty to care? The phrase "filial obligations" is generally understood to refer to special duties--specific kinds of actions, services, and attitudes--that children must provide to their parents simply because they are those parents' offspring’s. Filial responsibility refers to the sense of obligation experienced by adult children to meet their older parents' physical and emotional needs. Contemporary societies, both west and east, retain a significant interest in how filial responsibility is maintained and experienced as an attitudinal basis for action to care for and support older adults. In increasingly aging societies, where we have seen increased life span in majority of adults what with new lifestyle management including yoga are in practice and consequential addition of years to their otherwise shorter life span, the burden of filial responsibility on the children has increased considerably. Nevertheless, relative disability and filial responsibility and how they are associated with filial care giving and filial support to aging parents, are of major public interest and importance. Now coming back to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioners are father and mother. They are aged 75 and 70 years respectively. It is also not in dispute that respondent is the second son. Contending that their son is a Driver and has sufficient means, neglected and refused to pay maintenance, petitioners-sought the aid of the Court for maintenance. Learned Judge in extenso referred to the evidence on record and held that respondent being the son, is duty bound to maintain his aged parents. It is this order which is called in question in this revision petition. In this Court, respondent adhered to the contention that he has to look after his children and bear their education expenses. He also urged that he has to repay loans and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. While arguing the case, learned counsel sought to urge that respondent's elder brother is looking after his parents by paying a sum of Rs. He also urged that he has to repay loans and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. While arguing the case, learned counsel sought to urge that respondent's elder brother is looking after his parents by paying a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month and hence, respondent is not liable to pay maintenance to his aged parents. With great respect to learned counsel, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. The liability of a Hindu to maintain others is of two kinds, (i) personal liability independently of the possession of any property to maintain, which arises in some cases from the mere relationship between the parties and (ii) liability depending altogether on the possession of property. It is pertinent to note that maintenance has not been defined in the Act or between parents whose duty is to maintain the children. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 constitute a law in a coded form for the Hindus. Unless there is anything repugnant to the context definition of a particular word could be lifted from any of the four Acts constituting the law to interpret a certain provision. All these Acts are to be read in conjunction with one another and interpreted accordingly. We can, therefore, go to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to understand the meaning of 'Maintenance'. Section 3 (b) reads as under:- 'Maintenance' includes- (i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage. Maintenance, necessarily must encompass a provision, for residence. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. The right of maintenance the Hindu Law is founded on certain texts, one of which is that of Manu: which when translated means; "It is declared by Manu that the aged mother and father, the chaste wife and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds". The right of maintenance the Hindu Law is founded on certain texts, one of which is that of Manu: which when translated means; "It is declared by Manu that the aged mother and father, the chaste wife and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds". The Hindu law places on every man a personal obligation to maintain his aged parents, his virtuous wife and his minor sons and unmarried daughters. A son is under a personal obligation to maintain his aged parents. It is a legal obligation not dependent on his possession of property but arising out of the mere relationship between the parties. In this regard, it would be relevant to consider Section 125(d) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. By plain reading of language used in Section 125(1) and to provisions relating to father and mother in clause (d) thereof, only two circumstances which have to be gone into for the purpose of deciding claim under Section 125(1) appear that father or mother must be unable to maintain himself or herself and secondly, person against whom order under Section 125(1) is sought, must have sufficient means to maintain them and yet willfully neglects or refuses to maintain. The provision is really in the nature of ameliorative provision made for the first time recognizing right of infirm parents, who are unable to maintain themselves to be maintained by their son or daughter who is possessed of sufficient means as also providing as remedy to enforce that right. It is perhaps well to observe that Section 125(d) has also imposed liability on sons to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself. The Legislature in enacting code of 1973 thought it wise to provide for maintenance of parents of person when such parents unable to maintain themselves. I would observe that the purpose of such enactment is to enforce social obligation to maintain their parents. In conclusion, this Court is of the view that the object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. 7. This Court see no reason to interfere with the Judge's order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 7. This Court see no reason to interfere with the Judge's order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of main petition, I.A. No. 1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly, disposed of.