Can Children Escape Parental Maintenance Duties by Citing Property Distribution? MP HC Weighs In

In a recent ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the obligation of children to provide maintenance to their parents is independent of how much property the parents have given to their children. The Court affirmed that maintaining one’s parents is a fundamental duty and not contingent upon property transfers.

Background of the Case

The case, titled Govind Lodhi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (Writ Petition No. 25471 of 2024), centered around a writ petition challenging a maintenance order issued under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioner, Govind Lodhi, contested a directive mandating him and his three brothers to contribute to their mother, Smt. Hakki Bai’s maintenance.

Petitioner's Argument

Govind Lodhi argued that he should not be liable for maintenance payments because his mother had not allocated any land to him, implying that property distribution should determine maintenance obligations. He also cited financial difficulties as a reason for his inability to support his mother.

Court’s Ruling

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, presiding over the case, dismissed these arguments. The Judge emphasized that the duty of children to maintain their parents does not hinge on the amount of property given by the parents. Justice Ahluwalia stated:

“The question of payment of maintenance to parents is not dependent upon the fact of how much property has been given to the children. It is the inherent duty of children to maintain their parents. If the petitioner is aggrieved by an alleged unequal distribution of property, he should pursue a civil suit but cannot evade his responsibility to provide maintenance to his mother.”

Court’s Considerations

The Court reviewed the rising cost of living and inflation, deeming the monthly maintenance amount of ₹8,000 fair and reasonable. This sum was to be split equally among all four sons, with each son responsible for paying ₹2,000 per month. The Court noted:

“Considering the price index and the cost of goods for daily needs, a total monthly maintenance of ₹8,000, divided among all four sons, cannot be deemed excessive.”

Previous Orders and Adjustments

Initially, the SDO Tribunal had ordered the sons to pay a total of ₹12,000 per month, divided equally at ₹3,000 each. This amount was later reduced to ₹8,000, with each son contributing ₹2,000. Despite the reduction, the petitioner challenged the order, arguing that it was unjust due to the alleged unequal distribution of land by his mother.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision underscores that the legal obligation to maintain one’s parents remains unaffected by property distribution. The Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that parental maintenance is a fundamental duty of children, irrespective of property considerations.

Case Title: Govind Lodhi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 25471 of 2024