Madras HC: Son Acquiring Father's Property Doesn't Entitle Father to Maintenance if Not Destitute

Madras High Court sets aside maintenance order for father who suppressed assets and rental income, ruling that mere acquisition of property by son does not entitle father to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if he is not destitute.

In a significant ruling on the scope of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Madras High Court has held that a father who is not living in vagrancy or destitution cannot claim maintenance from his son merely because the son acquired his self-acquired property. Justice Sunder Mohan allowed a criminal revision filed by the son, Suraj Goyal, setting aside the Family Court's order directing him to pay Rs. 75,000 per month to his father, C.M. Goyal.

A Father's Plea for Support

The father, aged 83, had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance, claiming that he was unable to maintain himself. He alleged that his son, in collusion with his wife, had deceived him into executing a settlement deed, after which the son's attitude changed. He claimed the son prevented him from running his business, stopped paying utility bills, and left him without any source of income. The Family Court, sympathizing with the father, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 75,000.

The Son's Defense

The son countered that the father was not a destitute. He pointed out that the father owned several commercial properties, earned substantial rental income, had business income, and had even gifted money to grandchildren. He also highlighted that the father had filed two contradictory affidavits of assets—first claiming no income, and later disclosing some rental income but suppressing actual amounts. The son argued that the maintenance petition was filed only after the father failed to cancel the settlement deed before authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

Court's Scrutiny of Assets

Justice Sunder Mohan meticulously examined the evidence, including rental agreements (Ex.R7 to Ex.R11) that showed the father was receiving Rs. 82,000 per month in rent from commercial properties. The court noted the father's false explanations in cross-examination, such as claiming a tenant reduced rent from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 16,000 after rains. The court also observed that the father's bank statements showed credits from business income and that he had the capacity to give substantial amounts to grandchildren.

The court concluded that the father was not living in vagrancy or destitution. It emphasized that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, not to punish past neglect. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, which held that maintenance proceedings are meant to provide a speedy remedy for food, clothing, and shelter to those unable to maintain themselves.

When Sympathy Meets the Letter of the Law

While acknowledging that the case was "disturbing" and that the son's conduct in obtaining the father's property and failing to provide moral support was condemnable, the court refused to stretch the law. Justice Sunder Mohan observed: "This is certainly a hard case when the son is accused of obtaining the self-acquired property of a father by a settlement and had not given the father any moral support. But, that does not entitle the father to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. unless he satisfies the conditions provided."

The court quoted an article by former judge Justice S.A. Khader, which stated that " hard cases should not make a bad law " and that sentimental considerations cannot supplant statutory provisions . The court further noted: "The Courts are to administer justice according to law and not according to moral values, equitable principles and sentimental considerations ."

Key Observations

• "The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution . It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves ." (Quoting Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai )

• "The contrary statements by the father in his two affidavits suggest that there was an attempt to suppress the properties in his name... These statements in the affidavit have been made only to make a claim under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which cannot be countenanced."

• "No amount of money can compensate for the lack of moral or the family support that a person is entitled to at his old age. This Court only can hope and trust that the good sense prevails upon the parties and they sort out the issues to ensure that the relationship between the father and the son is maintained as it is supposed to be."

The Verdict

The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the Family Court's order. However, it directed that any maintenance amount already paid by the son shall not be recovered. The court expressed hope that the parties would resolve their differences amicably.

This ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not a tool for settling property disputes or compensating for lack of moral support. It is a remedy for those who are truly unable to maintain themselves, and those who have means cannot claim it even if they have been wronged by their children.