The Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the obligation to pay maintenance to parents is not contingent on the amount of property transferred to children; it is the responsibility of children to support their parents.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash or set aside the order holding the Petitioner liable for maintenance payments, and a Writ of Mandamus directing that the maintenance amount for Smt. Hakki Bai’s livelihood be recovered from her three sons.
The bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “The question of payment of maintenance to parents is not dependent upon the fact that how much property has been given to the children. It is the duty of children to maintain their parents.”
Advocate Brijendra Swaroop Sahu represented the Appellant, while Government Advocate Mohan Sausarkar represented the Respondent.
The Petitioner contested the orders issued by the Additional Collector and the SDO under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Respondent, Smt. Hakki Bai, had filed an application under Section 16 of the Act, asserting that her sons, including the Petitioner, had promised to support her after she distributed her land to them through separate sale deeds. The Petitioner claimed that his mother did not transfer any land to him and that he lacked the financial means to pay the maintenance, requesting the Court to overturn the SDO’s order.
The Court stated that if an individual is dissatisfied with the unequal distribution of land, they have the option to file a Civil Suit, but this does not absolve them of the responsibility to provide maintenance to their mother.
Accordingly, the Court held that the lower courts were correct in directing Smt. Hakki Bai’s sons to pay her maintenance.
The Court ultimately dismissed the Petition.