Pious duty of son to maintain his aged father even if father is earning: Jharkhand High Court

It is the pious duty of a son to support his aged father and pay him maintenance even if the father is earning, the Jharkhand High Court recently said while upholding a family court order directing a man to pay maintenance to his aged father [Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sao V/S The State of Jharkhand and Others]..Justice Subhash Chand made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a man challenging a family court order that had ordered him to pay ₹3,000 as monthly maintenance to his father. .The judge also cited Hindu scriptures and the Mahabharat to drive home the importance of one's parents. "In Hinduism the importance of parents is shown, which is quoted as under: 'If your Parents are confident you feel confident, if they are sad you will feel sad. Father is your God and Mother is your Nature. They are the seed you are the Sapling. No whatever good or bad they have in them, even inactive, will become a tree in you. So you inherit your parent’s good and bad both. A person carries some debts due to being born and that includes debt (Spiritual) of Father and Mother which we have to repay,'" the Court said. Further, the Court noted that in the Mahabharat, when asked what is mightier than the earth and higher than the heavens, Yudhishthira said, “the mother is weightier than the earth; the father is higher than the heaven.”.The Court added that even if, for the sake of argument, the father is earning some income, this does not affect the son's duty to maintain his parent. "Even if for the sake of argument, the father earns something; it is pious duty of a son to maintain his old aged father," the order stated. .The Court was dealing with a criminal revision plea by a man who challenged a March 2023 family court order directing him to pay ₹3,000 as maintenance to his father, aged around 60 years. The father, Deoki Sao, had submitted that he had two sons, Pradip Kumar and Manoj Kumar. He had transferred his land in equal shares to the two in 1994. He added that while his older son, Pradip Kumar had been maintaining him for 15 years, his younger son Manoj Kumar was not maintaining him and was living separately. Deoki Sao also alleged that he was insulted and subjected to assault by his younger son. Deoki Sao, therefore, moved an application before the family court seeking ₹10,000 per month as maintenance from Manoj Kumar. .The family court's decision to order the payment of ₹3,000 as monthly maintenance, payable by the younger son was then challenged before the High Court. .The younger son contended that he has not been neglecting his father and that his father has his own income from agricultural land and a bricks kiln. He argued that his father was able to maintain himself and that the maintenance application was filed only to harass him (younger son)..The Court, however, was not persuaded by these arguments. "It is found that the father is having some agricultural land yet is not able to cultivate the same. He also depends upon his elder son, with whom, he resides. The father has given the share in whole property to his younger son Manoj Sao equally but he has not been maintained by his younger son for more than 15 years. Even if for the sake of argument, the father earns something; it is pious duty of a son to maintain his old aged father," the Court said..The High Court, therefore, upheld the family court order and dismissed the plea..Advocate Bharat Kumar appeared for the petitioner (son). Additional Public Prosecutor Shashi Kumar Verma appeared for the State. Advocate Abhilash Kumar appeared for the father. .[Read Order]