Son cannot avoid responsibility to maintain old father: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently said that a son cannot avoid his responsibility to maintain his old and ailing father and also cannot dictate the father to live with him as a condition to pay maintenance [Jagannath Bedke vs Haribhau Bedke]..Single-judge Justice Vibha Kankanwadi while hearing a father's plea seeking maintenance from his son, noted that the son insisted the father to live with him."The son cannot avoid his responsibilities to maintain the father. It appears that he is putting a condition that the petitioner (father) should come and stay along with him like mother. The son cannot impose such condition," the judge said in her order passed on July 8..The Court was hearing a father's plea challenging an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge who had set aside the order of maintenance passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shevgaon in Ahmednagar district. Before Justice Kankanwadi, the son claimed that due to differences between his mother and father, the father was residing separately though his mother was living with him.The judge, however, said that these issues of differences between mother and father need not be considered."Unfortunately, now the situation has arisen for the father that he is unable to maintain himself and then he is required to depend upon somebody else. The son is trying to say that because of the vices of the father, there are differences between the mother and the father and they are not residing together. So also now the father is demanding the money just to fulfill his vices. We cannot go into these disputed facts forever," the Court said..The judge noted that the father, who was over 73 years of age, was working as a labourer earning ₹20 per day.The judge further held that the Courts while deciding matters under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should not be hyper technical."The approach taken by the lower court appears to be too hyper technical and when it comes to petitions under Section 125 of CrPC, the Courts cannot be so hyper technical in their approach. The said provision is made for the immediate support that too financial in nature of a person so that he or she can survive. Therefore, taking into consideration these aspects, definitely the Constitutional powers of this Court deserve to be invoked in this case when such too technical approach is taken and the father is forced to earn now at this age of 73 to 75 years," the judge concluded.Therefore, the Court ordered the son to pay ₹3,000 per month to his father..Advocate ND Batule appeared for the father while the son was represented by advocates DR Marked and GP Darandale..[Read Order]