argues that: Petitioners being the appellants could not
have been made worse off in their own appeal; they do
not have sufficient means to pay the amount and they are
ready & willing to look after their mother and therefore,
she should be asked to join their home, leaving the place
of her daughters; the mother has claimed maintenance
only at the instigation of her daughters and thus the claim
lacks bona fide.
(v) The next contention of the Petitioners that they are
ready & willing to look after their mother and therefore
she should be directed to join them, is neither legally
sustainable nor factually desirable. This Court saw the
mother Smt.Venkatamma, who is absolutely illiterate and
who has a fragile health condition; she is aged about 84
years, as admitted in the Petition itself. Her eyesight is
considerably diminished. Law of marriage generally
provides for restitution of conjugal rights qua the deserting
spouse, is true. No law or ruling of the kind is cited at the
Bar that the unwilling parents can be forced to reside with
their children. Such a contention is incongruous and
abhorrent to our culture & tradition, to say the least.
(vi) Absolutely no material is produced by the Petitioners
to substantiate their allegation that the mother is being
manipulated by her daughters. It is not that the daughters
want any share in the family property. It is they who have
been looking after the mother abandoned by the sons.
But for them, she would have been on the streets. The
gestures shown by the daughters merits a deep
appreciation at the hands of this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
WRIT PETITION NO. 13182 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
SRI. GOPAL LATE YELLAIAH Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
Petitioners being the sons of 3rd Respondent - mother
aged & ailing lady are knocking at the doors of Writ Court
for assailing the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the 1st
Respondent-Deputy Commissioner and the order dated
22.05.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent -Assistant
Commissioner respectively at Annexures-A & B. The
Assistant Commissioner has directed the Petitioners to pay
to their mother a monthly sum of Rs.5,000/- each.
However, the Deputy Commissioner has enhanced it to
Rs.10,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently
argues that: Petitioners being the appellants could not
have been made worse off in their own appeal; they do
not have sufficient means to pay the amount and they are
ready & willing to look after their mother and therefore,
she should be asked to join their home, leaving the place
of her daughters; the mother has claimed maintenance
only at the instigation of her daughters and thus the claim
lacks bona fide. Learned counsel hastily adds that, all
these aspects despite urgement having not been adverted
to, the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmities and
therefore, are liable to be voided.
3. Learned HCGP appearing for the official
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the learned advocate
appearing for the mother of Petitioners vehemently oppose
the Petition making submission in justification of the
impugned orders and the reasons on which they have
been structured. Learned HCGP contends that the
impugned orders are the products of exercise of discretion
by the officials under a socio-welfare legislation namely
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 and therefore the Writ Court exercising a limited
supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under
Article 227 should abhor to undertake a deeper
examination in matters like this vide SADHANA LODH vs.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., (2003)3 SCC 524.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(i) The first submission of the Petitioners that appellants
cannot be worse off in their own appeal and therefore the
Appellate order is liable to be voided, is bit difficult to
countenance. Such a general proposition obtaining in the
realm of law of appeals is not invocable in cases arising
from socio-welfare legislations like 2007 Act, which is
enacted by the Parliament for protecting the interest of
senior citizens who are in a hapless position, as rightly
contended by learned HCGP. Such a traditional norm that
owes its origin to the jurisprudence of Colonial Era cannot
be readily invoked to defeat the intent of the statute. It
hardly needs to be stated that in effectuating the
Parliamentary intent, the authorities are also stakeholders
along with the parties to the lis. Had it not been so,
perhaps, other factors would have figured for
consideration.
(ii) The second submission of learned counsel for the
Petitioners that his clients do not have any means to pay
the amount directed in terms of impugned orders, is too
farfetched an argument and therefore, does not merit
countenance. Law, religion & custom mandate sons to
look after their parents, and more particularly aged
mother. Smrutikaaraas say: ‘rakshanti sthavire putra …’
nearly meaning that it is the duty of son to look after his
mother who is in the evening of her life. In an ancient
scripture of India entitled “Taittiriya Upaniṣad”, it is said
that when a student on graduation is leaving the Gurukula
(school/college), the guru/teacher gives him the parting
message as under:
“May you be one for whom his mother is a Deva.
May you be one for whom his father is a Deva.
May you be one for whom a guest is a Deva.
May you be one for whom his teacher is a Deva.”
Similarly, the Brahmanda Purana says:
The above shloka nearly translates to: to neglect the
parents, particularly in their old age, when they become
weak and dependent and to cause anguish, is a heinous
act for which there is no atonement available. The
virtuous idea is that one should respect & serve one’s
parents, guests & gurus, before one worships the
Almighty. This has been the tradition of this land since
centuries. With no joy in heart, this Court observes that
nowadays, a section of youngsters is failing to look after
the aged & ailing parents and the number is swelling. This
is not a happy development.
(iii) The argument that Petitioners do not have means to
pay, is too poor a justification for not looking after the
aged & ailing mother, especially when it is not their case
that they are not able bodied or diseased. The first
Petitioner who is present before the Court and participated
in the proceedings, is hale & healthy; the second Petitioner
is not before the Court, is true; but it is not his case too
that he is weak & incapable of earning; if an able bodied
person is bound to maintain his dependent wife, there is
no reason why such a rule should not apply when it comes
to the case of a dependent mother. An argument to the
contra falls foul of law & religion, to which the Petitioners
belong.
(iv) The argument that Petitioners do not have means to
pay is liable to be rejected for yet another reason: the first
Petitioner on being specifically asked, admitted in the open
Court that he owns three shop premises and has been
receiving Rs.10,000/- by way of monthly rent. The
mother who too present in the Court along with daughters
at once retorts that the rental income is far more than
Rs.20,000/-. The Petitioners have not produced the rental
agreements to demonstrate their assertion. Added, they
have suppressed their rental income from the authorities
who have made the impugned orders. Such a culpable
conduct of the Petitioners disentitles them to any relief in
the equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, the other provision namely Article 226 having
been mindlessly employed in their pleadings.
(v) The next contention of the Petitioners that they are
ready & willing to look after their mother and therefore
she should be directed to join them, is neither legally
sustainable nor factually desirable. This Court saw the
mother Smt.Venkatamma, who is absolutely illiterate and
who has a fragile health condition; she is aged about 84
years, as admitted in the Petition itself. Her eyesight is
considerably diminished. Law of marriage generally
provides for restitution of conjugal rights qua the deserting
spouse, is true. No law or ruling of the kind is cited at the
Bar that the unwilling parents can be forced to reside with
their children. Such a contention is incongruous and
abhorrent to our culture & tradition, to say the least.
(vi) Absolutely no material is produced by the Petitioners
to substantiate their allegation that the mother is being
manipulated by her daughters. It is not that the daughters
want any share in the family property. It is they who have
been looking after the mother abandoned by the sons.
But for them, she would have been on the streets. The
gestures shown by the daughters merits a deep
appreciation at the hands of this Court.
(vii) The last contention of the Petitioners that the amount
of Rs.10,000/- is much on the higher side, is simply liable
to be rejected. We are living in an age when bread is
costlier than blood. Money is loosing its purchasing power;
days are proving very costly; a sum of Rs.10,000/- by any
measure can be said to be excess; in fact, such a sum falls
short of the ‘living wages’ of an unskilled workman. To
hold body & soul together, more than that sum is
necessary. However, this Court very reluctantly abstains
from revising it upwardly, there being no such prayer from
the side of mother.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being
devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it
is, with a cost of Rs.5,000/- which the Petitioners jointly
shall remit to the 3rd Respondent- mother within thirty
days, failing which they are liable to pay an additional levy
of Rs.100/- per day, if delay is brooked.
SD/-
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment