In a significant judgment strengthening the rights of elderly parents, the Kerala High Court on November 4, 2025, ruled that a mother’s right to claim maintenance from her children is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her. The court also made it clear that a son cannot avoid responsibility towards his aged parents merely because he is married and has his own family.

The ruling came while dismissing a revision petition filed by a son against a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹5,000 per month as maintenance to his 60-year-old mother.

Background of the case

The case arose from a maintenance petition filed by the mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). She had sought ₹25,000 per month, stating that she had no employment or independent means of income.

In July 2025, the Family Court awarded her ₹5,000 per month. Challenging this, the son approached the Kerala High Court, arguing that his father was alive, financially capable, and already maintaining his wife. He also claimed that his mother earned income through cattle rearing and that he had his own wife and child to support.

Court rejects son’s arguments

The High Court firmly rejected these contentions. It noted that evidence clearly showed the son was employed in the Gulf and had sufficient means. The court found no reliable proof that the mother had any income or that the husband’s alleged support was adequate.

In strong words, the court observed that expecting a 60-year-old woman to engage in physically demanding cattle rearing reflected a serious moral and ethical failure on the son’s part, besides being legally untenable.

Maintenance rights are independent

Interpreting Section 144 of BNSS (earlier Section 125 CrPC), the court reiterated that it is a social justice provision meant to protect women, children, and aged parents. It clarified that:

  • A mother can seek maintenance from her children even if her husband is alive.
  • A husband’s duty to maintain his wife does not absolve children of their independent statutory obligation.
  • Marital responsibilities of a son do not excuse him from supporting needy parents.

Order upheld

Considering the mother’s needs and the son’s earning capacity, the High Court held that the ₹5,000 monthly maintenance was reasonable, if not inadequate, and dismissed the revision petition.