The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed shock over a man’s petition challenging the award of ₹5,000 maintenance to his 77-year-old mother..Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the man and ordered him to deposit the same in the name of his mother before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sangrur within a period of three months.“It is a classic example of Kalyug which is reflected from the present case which has shaken the conscience of this Court. There is no illegality in the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family court, and rather it will not be out of place to mention that even the amount of Rs.5,000/- was on the lower side, although no separate petition has been filed by the respondent widow for enhancement,” the Court said..The septuagenarian woman’s husband died in 1992. She is survived by a son and a married daughter. Her other son had also died, leaving behind his widow and two sons. After the death of her husband, the 77-year-old’s land of 50 bighas devolved upon her son and the sons of her deceased son.In 1993, she was awarded ₹1 lakh as maintenance for her past, present and future maintenance. She then started living with her daughter. Challenging the award of ₹5,000 maintenance to her, her son argued that since she was not living with him, the family court could not have passed the order.However, the counsel representing the mother contended that she has no source of income and is compelled to live at the mercy of her daughter, having no other alternative to sustain her..The Court called it an unfortunate case and said once it was found that the elderly woman did not have any source of income, there was no ground for her son to file the petition.“It actually shocks the conscience of this Court whereby the son has chosen to file the present petition against his own mother challenging fixation of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- although he succeeded the property of his father and the old age mother of 77 years does not have any source of income and has been living with her daughter who is married and is staying in her matrimonial home,” the Court said as it dismissed the plea..Advocates SS Brar and Neha represented the petitioner.Advocate Vishal Satija represented the respondent.
