The Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the man and ordered him to deposit the same in the name of his mother.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed astonishment at a man’s petition contesting the grant of ₹5,000 maintenance for his 77-year-old mother.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri imposed a ₹50,000 penalty on the man and directed him to deposit the amount in his mother’s name before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sangrur, within three months.
“It is a classic example of Kalyug which is reflected from the present case which has shaken the conscience of this Court. There is no illegality in the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family court, and rather it will not be out of place to mention that even the amount of Rs.5,000/- was on the lower side, although no separate petition has been filed by the respondent widow for enhancement,” the Court said.
The elderly woman’s husband passed away in 1992, leaving her with a son and a married daughter. She had another son who also passed away, survived by his widow and two sons.
Following her husband’s death, ownership of her 50-bigha land was transferred to her son and the sons of her late son.
In 1993, she was granted ₹1 lakh for her past, present, and future maintenance. She later moved in with her daughter. Contesting the ₹5,000 maintenance order, her son argued that since she was not residing with him, the family court had no grounds to issue such a directive.
However, the mother’s counsel argued that she had no source of income and was forced to depend on her daughter, with no other means of sustenance.
The Court described the case as unfortunate, stating that since it was established that the elderly woman lacked any financial support, her son’s petition had no valid grounds.
“It actually shocks the conscience of this Court whereby the son has chosen to file the present petition against his own mother challenging fixation of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- although he succeeded the property of his father and the old age mother of 77 years does not have any source of income and has been living with her daughter who is married and is staying in her matrimonial home,” the Court said as it dismissed the plea.