The Madras High Court has set aside an order directing a son to pay ₹75,000 per month as maintenance to his 80-year-old father, observing that the absence of moral or family support in old age cannot, by itself, be compensated through a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The father, C.M. Goyal alias Chandrakumar M. Goyal, had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance from his son. He claimed that he was unable to maintain himself and alleged that his son had acquired his self-acquired property through a settlement deed but subsequently failed to provide him adequate support.
The father stated that he had successfully carried on business in the past, provided education to his children and even given his son a 50% share in the business. He further alleged that after the settlement of a flat in his son’s favour, disputes arose between them and the son allegedly stopped paying property tax and electricity charges.
The Family Court had directed the son to pay ₹75,000 per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, the son approached the Madras High Court.
Son’s Contentions
The son contended that his father was not financially destitute and had sufficient resources to maintain himself. He also alleged that the maintenance proceedings were initiated after the father failed to obtain relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
It was further argued that the father had retained a life interest in the property despite settling it in favour of the son.
Madras High Court’s Observations
Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the case was undoubtedly difficult, particularly in view of the allegation that the son had obtained his father’s self-acquired property and subsequently failed to provide him moral support.
However, the Court held that such circumstances alone could not create an entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the statutory requirements were satisfied.
Section 125(1)(d) CrPC permits a father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself to claim maintenance from a son or daughter having sufficient means. The provision is intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
The Court emphasised that the claimant must establish the necessary conditions, including the inability to maintain himself or herself. Mere lack of comfort, strained family relations or absence of moral support cannot automatically result in an award of maintenance.
Moral Support Cannot Be Compensated Through Maintenance
The High Court observed that while the Court could sympathise with the father because of the strained relationship with his children, the Family Court’s approach of financially compensating him for the lack of moral or family support could not be accepted.
The Court noted that no amount of money can compensate for the absence of the moral and family support that an elderly person may expect from his children.
Court Sets Aside ₹75,000 Maintenance Order
The Madras High Court accordingly allowed the son’s revision petition and set aside the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹75,000 per month to his father.
The Court observed that although the dispute involved serious allegations concerning the transfer of the father’s property and the subsequent relationship between the parties, the statutory requirements for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC could not be bypassed.
The Court also expressed hope that the parties would resolve their differences and that good sense would ultimately prevail.
Conclusion
The judgment highlights that Section 125 CrPC is intended to prevent genuine financial destitution and not to provide monetary compensation merely for strained family relationships or lack of emotional and moral support. A parent seeking maintenance must establish the statutory requirement of being unable to maintain himself or herself, along with the other conditions prescribed under the provision.
