Man ordered to pay Rs 3,200 as monthly maintenance to parents
19 Dec 2012 12:47 AM GMT
A man has been asked by a Delhi court to pay Rs 3,200 per month as maintenance to his aged parents.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj asked the elderly couple’s son to pay maintenance to his parents saying he cannot deny sustenance to them.
The ASJ upheld the trial court’s order and said even otherwise, he should give money in the form of rent to them as he was living in his parents’ house.
‘Admittedly the house, as of now, is in the name of the mother. The son from that angle also should be liable to pay a rent to the respondents (parents), as if they were his landlords, being the owners of the house.
‘Be it from whatever angle, the petitioner (couple’s son) cannot say he is not liable to pay the maintenance as awarded by the trial court to the parents,’ the court said.
The son had challenged the trial court order saying he was running a small cycle repair shop and was earning Rs 5,000 to Rs 6,000 per month, while his elder brother was earning Rs 20,000. He also alleged his parents own three immovable properties and had also given out loans to people on interest.
The 74-year-old father and 67-year-old mother told the sessions court that they had demanded the maintenance from the petitioner, their younger son, as his elder brother was poor, while he was earning Rs 35,000 by running a four-wheeler repair work shop.
They added the son was residing in their house and that they had been turned out of their own house.
The ASJ directed the son to pay maintenance considering that he had not presented any documents to support his claim that his parents were owners of several immovable properties and neither had he given any particulars of their income from other sources.
Refusing to set aside the trial court’s order, the ASJ said there was no infirmity or illegality in it and the man’s appeal was devoid of merits.
The sessions court also observed that neglect and refusal on the man’s part is evident from the fact that his parents are forced to live separately despite the fact that the house where the son is living is in the name of his mother. The trial court has also observed that the parents can claim maintenance from any of the children without claiming the same from other children,’ it said, upholding the magistrate’s order.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj asked the elderly couple’s son to pay maintenance to his parents saying he cannot deny sustenance to them.
The ASJ upheld the trial court’s order and said even otherwise, he should give money in the form of rent to them as he was living in his parents’ house.
‘Admittedly the house, as of now, is in the name of the mother. The son from that angle also should be liable to pay a rent to the respondents (parents), as if they were his landlords, being the owners of the house.
‘Be it from whatever angle, the petitioner (couple’s son) cannot say he is not liable to pay the maintenance as awarded by the trial court to the parents,’ the court said.
The son had challenged the trial court order saying he was running a small cycle repair shop and was earning Rs 5,000 to Rs 6,000 per month, while his elder brother was earning Rs 20,000. He also alleged his parents own three immovable properties and had also given out loans to people on interest.
The 74-year-old father and 67-year-old mother told the sessions court that they had demanded the maintenance from the petitioner, their younger son, as his elder brother was poor, while he was earning Rs 35,000 by running a four-wheeler repair work shop.
They added the son was residing in their house and that they had been turned out of their own house.
The ASJ directed the son to pay maintenance considering that he had not presented any documents to support his claim that his parents were owners of several immovable properties and neither had he given any particulars of their income from other sources.
Refusing to set aside the trial court’s order, the ASJ said there was no infirmity or illegality in it and the man’s appeal was devoid of merits.
The sessions court also observed that neglect and refusal on the man’s part is evident from the fact that his parents are forced to live separately despite the fact that the house where the son is living is in the name of his mother. The trial court has also observed that the parents can claim maintenance from any of the children without claiming the same from other children,’ it said, upholding the magistrate’s order.
Next Story
