RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court, while dismissing a plea filed by a man challenging a family court order that had directed him to pay Rs 3,000 as monthly maintenance to his father, has observed that “Even if for the sake of argument, the father earns something; it is the pious duty of a son to maintain his old father.”
Not only that, the Court also quoted Hindu scriptures to emphasise the importance of parents. “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. 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 in its order.
The Court of Justice Subhash Chand also noted that in the Mahabharat, when asked what is mightier than the earth and higher than the heavens, Yudhishthira had replied that, “the mother is weightier than the earth; the father is higher than the heaven.”
Notably, a criminal revision was filed by the son Manoj Kumar against the order passed by the family court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing him to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3000 per month to his father Deoki Sao, the petitioner.
The father, Deoki Sao, submitted that his younger son, Manoj Kumar is a quarrelsome, cruel and manhandling person. Deoki Sao had transferred his land to his both sons and the same was divided to both the sons equally and both have been cultivating the same, he said.
Deoki Sao further added that he has been residing with his elder son for the last 15 years but his younger son Manoj Kumar was not maintaining him and was living separately further alleging that he was insulted and subjected to assault by his younger son.
Meanwhile, 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 brick 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 satisfied with the arguments given by the son saying that the father has some agricultural land yet is not able to cultivate the same and is completely dependent on his elder son with whom he is residing. The court observed that even if for the sake of argument, the father earns something; it is the pious duty of a son to maintain his old-aged father, and therefore, upheld the family court order and dismissed the plea.