Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that: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. {Para 2}
(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.
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.
(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.
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.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment