MAINTENANCE: RIGHT OF PARENTS
Keywords:
Maintenance, Rights, Code of Criminal Procedure, ObligationAbstract
“The aged mother and father, the chaste wife and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a hundred misdeeds.”
- Manusmriti
Abstract
As the legend goes, young Ayyappa, the Lord of Sabarimala in Kerala, went to the forest to fetch tiger’s milk to save his ailing stepmother. It was nothing but pure love and devotion that prompted him to risk his life. After all, those days there was no law making it obligatory for a child to look after his aged parents. Now a day due to high number of cases relating to the abuse of parents, various laws have been enacted to provide a safeguard to the elders and to bind their son or daughter to pay them maintenance. This research paper will deal with the various laws related to what is maintenance, who are qualified as a person to get the maintenance and also who is liable to pay the maintenance and various provisions under various laws which deals with the right of maintenance. Being the children, it is their duty to provide the maintenance to their old and infirm parents. A separate act, Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizen had been in 2007 to specially deal with the maintenance of parents and senior citizens.
References
1. John F. Thatil, Regional Director, Help Age India. The Tribune, 28 October, 2008.
2. The Domestic Violence Act too provides parents with the right to seek relief from any kind of abuse. Parents cannot be evicted from a house without due process of the law if they have been staying there from before.
3. A national policy on older persons was announced in January 1999, which identified a number of areas of intervention, financial security, healthcare and nutrition, shelter, education, welfare, protection of life and property , for the well-being of older persons in the country. A national Council for older Persons (NCOP) was constituted by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to operationalize the national policy on older Persons.
4. Desai S.A., Mulla Principles of Hindu Law Vol.II, 20th Edn (Lexis Nexis Buttersworth, 2007) p-534.
5. Thakur RM, Philosophy of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in India: an appraisal. Int J Advan Res Technol. 2012;1(4):47 – 52.
6. Pearson KC, Re -thinking filial support laws in a time of Medicaid cutbacks–effect of Pennsylvania’s recodification of colonial-era poor laws. PA Bar Assoc Q. 2005;76:162–70. JFAL (2020) 8–14 © Law Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 14
7. Subbarayana v. Subbakka (1885) 8 Mad 236; Satyanarayanamurthy v. Ram Subbamma AIR 1964 AP 105.
8. Rafiuddin S/O Quazi Zainul Abedin v. Smt. Saleha Khatoon D/O Yaqub Ali 2007 (109) Bom L R 2059
9. Bai Daya v. Nath, (1885) 9 Bom 279; Narbadabai v. Mahadev (1881) 5 bom 99; Judemma v. Varadareddi (1948) ILR Mad 803.
10. Ramabai v. Dinesh (1976) Mah LJ 565.
11. 1996 (4) SCC 479.
12. Roshan Lal v. Barkat Ram Bhalla 1957 SCC Online P&H 127.
13. Savitribai v. Luximibai (1878) 2 Bom 573, pp. 597-98.
14. Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479.
15. Manu cited in Mitakshara.
16. AIR 1987 SC 1100.
17. (2011) 1 SCC 141.
18. 1980 CriLJ 256: 1980 (82) BOMLR 116.
19. Bai Kanku v. Bai Jadav (1884) 8 Bom 15.
20. Subbarayana v Subbakka (1885) 8 Mad 236, Satyanarayanamurthy v Ram Subbamma AIR 1964 AP 105.
21. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar (1929) 56 IA 182.
22. Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narain Devji Kango AIR 1954 SC 379.
23. Ekradeshwari v Homeshwar AIR 1929 PC128.
24. Davurpillai Venkataraman v Davurupillai Nookalamma AIR 1956 AP 49; Ekradeshwari v Homeshwar AIR1929 PC128.
25. Eluri Krishnamurthy v Eluri Suryakantamma AIR 1955 AP 5; Ekradeshwari v Homeshwar (1929) 56 IA 182.
26. Tagore v Tagore (1872) 9 Beng LR 377; Surampalli v Surampalli (1908) 31 Mad 388(341).
27. Sobhanadramma v Narasimha Swami AIR 1934 Mad 401; Rajanikanta Pal v Sajanisundari Dasaya AIR 1934 PC 29; Ekradeshwari v Homeshwar AIR 1929 PC128.
28. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors MANU/SC/0193/2005.
29. Dwarika Prasad Sathpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675: AIR 1999 SC 3348.
30. Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak (2008) 9 SCC 632: AIR 2008 SC 3006.
31. Pooja and Ors. v Deepak MANU/PH/0927/2017.
32. Nayanaben Ratilal Gohel v State of Gujarat and Ors MANU/GJ/0916/2017.
33. Renganathan and Ors. v State MANU/TN/0956/2018.
34. The Government of India in 1941, appointed a Committee called the Hindu Law Committee, under the Chairmanship of B.N. Rau to examine the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and to suggest such amendments to the Act. The Committee in its recommendations also made suggestions for the reforms in the Hindu Law.
35. GANDHI BM, Hindu Law, 3rd Edn ( Eastern Book Co, 2008) pp-463,464.
36. Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
37. Smt. Munni Devi v Smt. Choti Devi AIR 1983 ALL 444.
38. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari AIR 1971 SC 234.
39. Section 4-18.
40. Section 21-23.
41. Section 5(4).
42. Section 9(2).
43. Section 24(1).
44. Manu, Chapter II.
45. Narbadabai v Mahadeo (1881) 5 Bom 96 (103,104); Shanmuga Rajeswara Sethupati v Chidambaram Chettiar AIR 1938 PC 123; Thimmanayanium v Venkatappa AIR 1928 Mad 713; Rani Annapurni v Swaminatha (1911) 43 Mad 7.
46. Janaki v Nandram (1889) ILR 11 All 194; Rajani Kanta Pal v Sajani Sundari Dasee AIR 1934 PC 29; Yamunabai v Manubai (1899) 23 Bom 608. Cite this Article Shilpi. Maintenance: Right of Parents . 3(2): 8–14p.
