In a significant verdict that strengthens the financial security of elderly parents, the Kerala High Court has ruled that a mother’s right to claim maintenance from her son is an independent statutory right. This right stands valid even if her husband (the father) is alive and providing for her.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, emphasized that a son cannot evade his legal and moral responsibility by pointing fingers at his father's ability to pay. The Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a man challenging a lower court order that directed him to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 to his aged mother.
The ruling comes as a crucial interpretation of Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—formerly Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—which is designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution among wives, children, and parents.
The Case Matrix: Farookh vs. Kayyakkutty
The case titled Farookh vs. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja (R.P.(F.C.) No. 375 of 2025) reached the High Court after a bitter legal battle in the Family Court at Tirur.
The Parties Involved:
The Petitioner (Son): Farookh, a 42-year-old man employed in the Gulf.
The Respondent (Mother): Kayyakkutty alias Kadeeja, a 60-year-old woman.
The Dispute:
The mother had originally approached the Family Court seeking ₹25,000 per month for her sustenance. She pleaded that she had no job, no income, and was unable to maintain herself. She pointed out that her son was earning a substantial salary abroad and could easily afford to support her.
The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, directed the son to pay a modest sum of ₹5,000 per month. Aggrieved by this order, the son moved the Kerala High Court, hoping to get the order set aside.
The Son's Defence:
The arguments presented by the son’s legal team—Advocates Jamsheed Hafiz and T.S. Sreekutty—rested on three main pillars, all of which were systematically dismantled by the High Court:
The "Cattle Rearing" Argument: The son contended that his 60-year-old mother was not destitute. He claimed she was "rearing cattle" and earning sufficient income from it.
The "Father is Alive" Argument: He argued that his father (the woman's husband) was a fisherman who owned a boat and was already providing maintenance to her. Therefore, he argued, the claim against him was unsustainable.
The "Own Family" Argument: The son pleaded that he had his own wife and child to support, implying that paying his mother would be a financial burden.
The Court's Ruling:
Justice Edappagath rejected the son's contentions, delivering a judgment that blends strict legal interpretation with strong ethical observations.
1. Dual Liability is Permissible
The most legally significant aspect of this judgment is the clarification regarding Section 144 of the BNSS. The Court held that the law places a distinct burden on both the husband and the children.
Husband's Duty: Under Section 144(1)(a), a husband must maintain his wife.
Son's Duty: Under Section 144(1)(d), a son (or daughter) must maintain their parents.
The Court clarified that these are mutually exclusive and independent liabilities. Just because a husband is maintaining his wife, it does not automatically absolve the son of his statutory duty. If the mother needs support, the son must pay.
"The right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her. A mother can claim maintenance from her children even if her husband is maintaining her, and the son can be legally required to contribute if the mother is unable to maintain herself and the husband is not providing sufficient support." — Kerala High Court
2. The "Moral Failure" of the Son
The Court took serious exception to the son’s argument that his elderly mother should earn a living by rearing cattle. The judge found this line of defense to be in poor taste, especially coming from a son who is employed comfortably in the Gulf.
In a strongly worded observation, Justice Edappagath noted:
"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. This scenario typically implies a lack of care, support, and respect for an elderly parent who likely depends on or deserves the support of her wealthy child."
The Court further noted that there was zero evidence to prove the mother actually owned cattle or earned income. It was merely an allegation thrown by the son to escape liability.
3. "I Have My Own Family" is Not a Valid Excuse
Addressing the son's plea that he has to maintain his wife and child, the Court laid down a clear principle: Marriage does not sever the tie with parents.
The Court held that a son cannot escape his liability to maintain his aged parents merely because he has a family of his own. The duty towards the new family does not cancel out the duty towards the parents who raised him.
Understanding Section 144 BNSS (Formerly Section 125 CrPC)
For our readers, it is important to understand the legal provision at the heart of this case.
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaces the well-known Section 125 of the CrPC. Despite the change in name, the spirit of the law remains the same. It is a piece of social justice legislation.
Who can claim? Wives, legitimate or illegitimate children, and fathers or mothers.
Condition: The claimant must be "unable to maintain themselves."
Condition for Payer: The person must have "sufficient means" but "neglects or refuses" to maintain the dependent.
The Courts have consistently held that "sufficient means" does not just mean liquid cash; it refers to the earning capacity of an able-bodied person. In this case, the son was employed abroad, which is prima facie evidence of sufficient means.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is a crucial precedent for several reasons:
Empowerment of Mothers: It gives mothers the agency to choose who they claim maintenance from. They are not forced to rely solely on a husband who might be abusive, estranged, or providing barely enough to survive.
Burden of Proof: The Court reiterated that the burden is on the person alleging income (the son) to prove it. Merely stating the mother "rears cattle" is not enough without evidence.
Dignity of Labour: By calling out the expectation for a 60-year-old to do hard labor as a "moral failure," the Court has recognized that the right to maintenance is also about the right to live with dignity, not just survival.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the son's revision petition and upheld the Family Court's order. The son must pay ₹5,000 per month to his mother.
While ₹5,000 may seem like a modest amount in 2025, the legal principle established is invaluable. It sends a stern message to children who attempt to use their parents' existing relationships or hypothetical earning capacity as a shield to hide from their own financial responsibilities. As the Court noted, caring for aged parents is not just a moral duty—it is a statutory obligation that the law will enforce strictly.
JUDGEMENT LINK :- https://hckinfo.keralacourts.in/digicourt/orders/2025/212600003752025_2.pdf