Sons duty-bound to maintain mother:HC

The Madras High court today said as per 'dharma', sons are duty-bound to maintain the mother and directed one of the sons of a woman, settled in Canada and earning Rs.Three-lakh a month, to provide her Rs 15,000 a month.
Disposing of a criminal revision petition filed by the first son of the woman, Pon Devaki, Justice S Vimala of the Court's Madurai Bench, said the "right of the mother to expect her children to maintain (her) is not only statutory right, constitutional right, fundamental right, natural and moral right but also human right."
The petition challenged the order of the Madurai Family Court to pay Rs.3000 a month to his mother.

The judge said "as per "dharma", the sons are duty-bound to maintain the mother. When dharma says that sons should take care of their parents, it means duty, breach of duty is purnishable," the judge said.
The judge said the son should not have made his mother approach the Family Court. The first son, instead of speaking about the duties and responsibilities of a son, was talking about the duties and responsibilties of his mother.
"He has no authority to speak on that line," the judge said.

Regarding the quantum of the compensation for mother, the judge said the claim for maintenance cannot be a match for profit and loss account.

"It reflects the requirement of a mother who created sons for the world. The 70-year-old mother has ailments, she would not be able to render any physical work."
The sons were in possession of the houses and lands. Her daughter, who had promised to give her Rs.5000, had become a widow and she would not be able to give her money. However, she can give at least Rs.3000 for her mother who had given her a house, the judge said.
The judge said the revision petitioner, Elangovan, must pay Rs.3000 as ordered by the trial court.
The judge said the second son Rajakumaran, who is in Canada, did not even take care to find out why a petition was filed by his mother.

He did not even contest the proceedings. By remaining abroad, he would not be in a position to take care of the physical comforts of his mother, who had claimed a total compensation of Rs.21,000 from the three children.
The revision petitioner resisted the claim alleging that
his mother did not did give respect for the father and she took away all her belongings and got the daughter married to her brother.
However, the mother said her daughter married her uncle on her free will and she even did not attend her wedding.
The judge said it seemed nobody from the family attended the marriage. Hence, the contention that the mother left the family was not correct.

She had been taking care of her sons till the first son was 22 and the second son 14. She was feeling uncomfortable living with her daughter and hence could have given the house to her.
Due to sense of insecurity she could have left the house, the judge said and ordered that her second son pay her Rs.15,000 per month.
The trial court had ordered her first son to pay Rs.3000 and recorded the consent of the daughter to pay Rs.5000. It had also ordered the second son to pay Rs.3000 to his mother.