A son cannot avoid his responsibility to maintain his old father - Bombay HC

Case: Jagannath Bedke vs Haribhau Bedke

According to the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, a son cannot avoid his responsibility to maintain his old father, nor can he force the father to live with him in exchange for maintenance. 

Background

Single-judge Justice Vibha Kankanwadi was hearing a petition moved by a father challenging an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, the Session Judge set aside the maintenance order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shevgaon.

Before the HC, the son claimed that due to differences between his parents, the father was residing separately though his mother was living with him. The judge, however, said that these issues are not required to be considered here. 

Held

The judge further noted that the father, 73 years of age, was working as a laborer earning ₹20 per day. The HC also said that "the approach taken by the lower court appears to be too technical, and when it comes to petitions under Section 125 of CrPC, the Courts cannot be so technical in their approach. The provision is made for the immediate financial support in nature of a person so that he or she can survive. The Constitutional powers of this Court deserve to be invoked where such technical approach is taken and the father is forced to earn now at this age of 73 to 75 years." 

Given the same, the Court ordered the son to pay ₹3,000 per month to his father.