MAINTENANCE – PARENTS – SON’S DUTY – Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(2025) 7 KCD 285 : 2025 KER 56282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
R.P.(F.C.) No.253 of 2025; 29 July, 2025
An appeal was filed by a son, Unnikrishna Pillai, against an order from the Family Court, Kollam, which directed him to pay monthly maintenance to his mother, Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma.
Facts of the Case:
The mother, who was 92 at the time of filing the petition and is now 100 years old, sought maintenance from her son, stating she suffered from age-related infirmities, was unable to work or maintain herself, and had no independent source of income. She was under the care of another son, Janardhana Kurup, who also looked after her mentally retarded son, Radhakrishna Pillai.
The mother requested Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C..
The son (petitioner) admitted the relationship but contended that the petition was filed at the instigation of his elder brother, Janardhanan Pillai, who allegedly used the mother as a “tool” due to a property dispute. He claimed the elder brother cunningly took family assets when the petitioner was young and assaulted him later when he demanded his share.
The son argued he was illiterate, his wife was ill, and his income from agriculture was meagre, making him dependent on his in-laws. He also stated he was willing to look after his mother if she stayed with him. He contested the amount sought, stating Rs. 5,000/- was not required.
The Family Court, Kollam, after the mother (PW1) was cross-examined by the son’s counsel, directed the son to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance.
The son filed a Revision Petition against this order with a delay of 1149 days, only after revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him.
High Court’s Observations & Ruling:
The Court expressed deep shame that a 100-year-old mother had to fight her son in court for a mere Rs. 2,000/- monthly maintenance.
It was highlighted that the son forced his 92-year-old mother into the witness box for cross-examination.
The Court emphasized that it is the duty of a son to serve his parents and that a mother is a son’s “home base”. It stressed that children should be patient with elderly parents, just as parents were patient with them.
The Court firmly held that it is not a valid defense for a son in a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to argue that the mother has other children who should maintain her or that they are not doing so.
The Court stated that it is the duty of the son to look after his mother, irrespective of other children’s attitudes; otherwise, he is “not a human being”.
Even if the petition was instigated by the elder brother, the son should have ensured the situation was resolved within the family, as a 92-year-old mother should not have to approach court for maintenance when her children are alive.
The son’s offer to maintain his mother if she lives with him was deemed “not a charity” but a fundamental duty.
The Revision Petition, filed with an “unconscionable” delay of 1149 days, was found to have no grounds for interference.
The Revision Petition (Family Court) was dismissed in limine. The Court noted it would have dismissed it with heavy costs, but no notice was issued to the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner: Advs. B. Mohanlal, P.S. Preetha, Aswin V. Nair, Karthik J Sekhar, Abijith M., Avani Nair, Jayaprabha Arjun, Praveena T. & Motty Jiby Vasudevan
For Respondents : Adv. Hrithwik C.S. (Sr. Government Pleader)
