Son’s Duty to Maintain Mother Under Sec 125 CrPC is Absolute, Independent of Husband's Obligation: Kerala High Court

ERNAKULAM: In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of filial responsibility, the Kerala High Court has held that a son's statutory obligation to maintain his mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is independent and cannot be absolved even if her husband is alive and providing for her.

The bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath dismissed a revision petition filed by a son challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 to his 60-year-old mother. The court described the son's arguments as a "significant moral failure" and a "disregard for the mother’s well-being and dignity."

Case Background

The case, titled Farookh vs. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja , originated from M.C. No. 229 of 2022 before the Family Court, Tirur. The respondent, Kayyakkutty, filed a petition seeking ₹25,000 per month in maintenance from her son, Farookh, who is employed in the Gulf. She stated that she had no means to support herself. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, granted her maintenance of ₹5,000 per month. Farookh, the petitioner, challenged this order in the High Court.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner-son raised several arguments to evade his responsibility: 1. He contended that his mother's husband (his father) is a fisherman who owns a boat and provides for her, making a separate claim against the son legally unsustainable. 2. He alleged that his mother earns an income by rearing cattle. 3. He cited his own financial obligations, stating he has to maintain his wife and child.

The respondent-mother maintained that she had no employment or source of income and that her son, earning approximately ₹2,00,000 per month, had sufficient means to support her.

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

Justice Edappagath firmly rejected the son's contentions, elaborating on the social justice objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS).

Son's Obligation is Independent

The court clarified that the rights of a mother to claim maintenance from her husband and her children are "independent and mutually exclusive." It held that a son has an independent statutory duty under the law that is not contingent on the father's actions.

> "The fact that the husband of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the son of his independent statutory obligation under Section 144(1)(d) of BNSS ( Section 125 (1)(d) of Cr.P.C.) to support his mother if she needs it," the judgment stated.

The court further noted that the Family Court had found the evidence of the husband providing adequate maintenance to be unbelievable.

Court Scorns Son's "Cattle Rearing" Argument

The High Court took strong exception to the son's suggestion that his elderly mother should earn her livelihood through the physically demanding work of cattle rearing.

> "It is quite unfortunate and inappropriate for an affluent son to tell his aged mother that she should go to cattle rearing to earn her livelihood. Expecting a sexagenarian mother to perform such labour highlights significant moral failure on the part of the son and disregard for the mother’s well-being and dignity," the court observed.

It also found no evidence to support this claim, highlighting that the son did not even testify in court to deny his mother's assertions.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the petitioner's arguments were untenable. It held that a son cannot escape his liability to maintain aged parents merely because he has his own family to support. Finding the maintenance amount of ₹5,000 to be "absolutely reasonable, if not inadequate," given the son's income and the mother's needs, the court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Family Court's order.