A son has a legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance to his mother, regardless of other siblings' actions.

ORDER :

1. A 92-year-old mother knocked on the doors of the Family Court, Kollam, for getting maintenance from her own son. The petitioner herein, who is her son, contested the case. The petitioner's 92-year-old mother was forced to enter the witness box in the Family Court. She was thoroughly cross-examined by his counsel. Thereafter, the Family Court, Kollam, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his 92-year-old mother @ Rs. 2,000/- per month as per the order dated 29.04.2022 in M.C. No.71/2017. Challenging the order of maintenance, this Revision Petition is filed by the son along with a delay condonation petition to condone the delay of 1149 days in filing the Revision Petition when revenue recovery proceedings are initiated against him for the recovery of the amount. At the time of filing the petition, the mother of the petitioner was 92, and now she is aged 100 and waiting for the maintenance from his son! I am forced to say that, I feel deeply ashamed, being a member of this society, where a son is fighting with his mother, aged 100, merely to deny her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-!

2. The case of the 1^st respondent before the Family Court reads like this:

The 1^st respondent is the mother of the petitioner. She is aged 92 years at the time of filing the petition, and she is suffering from age-related infirmities. She is unable to do any physical work, and thereby she is not able to maintain herself. She has no independent source of income. Now, she is under the care and protection of her other son, Janardhana Kurup, aged 72 years. Janardhana Kurup is also looking after her son Radhakrishna Pillai, who is a mentally retarded person. In addition to the said children, the 1^st respondent has another son and two daughters too. The petitioner is an able-bodied man, aged 50 years. He is an agriculturist and earns Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is also stated that the petitioner is a loading worker. Though the 1^st respondent requested the petitioner to give maintenance, he refused to do so. Therefore, the maintenance application was filed by the 1^st respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month.

3. The petitioner filed an objection before the Family Court. The relationship with the 1^st respondent is admitted. The case of the petitioner is that the elder son of the 1^st respondent, who has an axe to grind against the petitioner, is acting from behind the 1^st respondent, and the mother is merely a tool in the hands of the elder son of the 1^st respondent. According to the petitioner, the mother, under the elder son’s influence and coercion, filed the claim petition. It is also stated that, when the petitioner was only 6 years of age, his elder brother cunningly took possession of all the assets of the parents by creating a partition deed whereby he got a lion's share of the properties. Afterwards, when the petitioner attained majority and demanded his share in the family estates, he was assaulted by the said brother, and thereby he had to elope from the place. Subsequently, he returned to his native place and resided along with his mother, who is the 1^st respondent herein, and with the mentally retarded brother, Radhakrishna Pillai. After the marriage, the petitioner resided in a house constructed by himself. His mother and the mentally challenged brother were also residing with him. Things being so, about 3 years before, the said brother, Janardhanan Pillai, took the mother and the mentally challenged brother to his house with an eye to appropriate their assets in his favour, is the contention of the petitioner. Ever since the petitioner demanded his share of the family estate, the said Janardhanan Pillai has used all means to vex and harass the petitioner. Finding no other alterna