Husband and Children Have Legal and Moral Duty to Maintain Wife and Mother | Madras High Court Upholds Family Court Order Directing ₹21,000 Monthly Maintenance
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld a Family Court order directing a husband and his two sons to pay ₹21,000 per month as maintenance to their wife and mother. The Court affirmed that this responsibility rests on both legal and moral grounds, holding that a man is bound to support and care for his wife and mother during their lifetime, especially in their later years. Dismissing the petitioners’ challenge to the Family Court’s decision, the Court found no illegality or excess in the maintenance award, holding it fair and necessary for the respondent’s well-being.
The dispute concerned a maintenance order issued by the Family Court in Madurai on 18 March 2025 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent, the wife of the first petitioner and mother of the second and third petitioners, had sought monthly maintenance of ₹40,000, along with recovery of 290 sovereigns of gold ornaments given at the time of marriage and ₹5,00,000 allegedly due from the petitioners.
The wife alleged that she had been deserted by her husband in 2015 and was compelled to live separately. She filed the maintenance petition in 2019 after several years of separation. The Family Court, after hearing both parties and considering the evidence, granted her monthly maintenance of ₹21,000.
The husband and sons challenged this order before the High Court. They contended that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause and that she was financially capable of maintaining herself, pointing to her ownership of a car and employment of a driver. The petitioners further argued that the husband, aged above 60 and in poor health, was unemployed, the second petitioner had limited income and family obligations, and the third petitioner had modest earnings from Bangalore insufficient to support himself and his family.
They maintained that the maintenance amount awarded was excessive and that the Family Court failed to appreciate their financial situation. They also asserted their willingness to support the respondent if she chose to live with them.
The respondent maintained that she had been deserted without reasonable cause and required financial support. The central legal provision involved was Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for maintenance to a wife unable to maintain herself.
The Court stated: “It is a well-established principle that it is a man’s legal and moral duty to maintain his mother/wife during her life time. This responsibility stems from the inherent obligation of children to care for their parents. Similarly, it is the duty of the husband and children to provide for the wife and mother during her old age, ensuring she is supported and cared for.”
The Court further recorded: “This duty is not only a moral imperative but also a legal obligation in many jurisdictions, where laws mandate that adult children provide financial support to their aging parents. By fulfilling this duty, individuals demonstrate respect, gratitude, and compassion towards their mothers, who have devoted themselves to nurturing and caring for their families.”
Justice Ahmed elaborated on the societal importance of such obligations: “It is the social responsibility of the husband and sons to maintain their wife and mother, as the invaluable role and care of a mother cannot be compensated, no matter how much her children pay her back in a lifetime. Moreover, no amount of payment can ever bear the pain and sacrifices that a mother endured at the time of their birth.”
The Court stated: “The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 21,000/- for the Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered excessive or disproportionate.”
The Court also reaffirmed the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C.: “The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions, which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife/mother and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which cannot be denied.” Justice Ahmed recorded that the petitioners did not deny the relationship between the parties, namely, that the first petitioner was the husband and the second and third petitioners were the sons of the respondent.
Finally, the Court held: “In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.”
Justice Ahmed recorded: “Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the Petitioner's case and the Family Court, Madurai had rightly passed the order in M.C.No.64 of 2019 dated 18.03.2025. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.”
“Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition lacks merit and stands dismissed and the Family Court, Madurai is directed to proceed the matter in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. N. TamilMani, Advocate
Case Title: XXX vs YYY
Case Number: Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 1282 of 2025 and Crl. M.P.(MD) No. 13122 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shamim Ahmed
