Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order directing monthly maintenance to a 100-year-old mother. The Court declined to interfere with the Family Court's direction that the petitioner pays Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance. The revision petition, filed after a delay of over three years, was dismissed in limine. The Court upheld the order passed on 29.04.2022 by the Family Court, Kollam, in proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No costs were imposed due to the absence of prior notice to the respondent.

The matter arose from a claim filed by a 92-year-old woman before the Family Court, Kollam, seeking maintenance from her son. At the time of the High Court's decision, the mother was aged 100. The maintenance claim was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 71 of 2017.

Also Read: "No Bail Orders Based on Financial Undertakings, Litigants Taking Courts for a Ride Must End": Supreme Court Cancels Bail, Orders Pan-India Compliance with Merits-Only Evaluation

The petitioner, her son, contested the claim, denying his liability. The petitioner contended that the mother was under the influence of her elder son and was being used to harass him. He alleged that his elder brother had taken over the family assets through a partition deed created when the petitioner was six years old. According to the petitioner, the elder brother, Janardhana Kurup, orchestrated the litigation against him.

The petitioner also asserted that he had later returned to live with his mother and mentally challenged brother, and subsequently constructed a separate house where he lived with his wife and son. He maintained that after he demanded a share in the family estate, his elder brother took their mother and mentally challenged sibling away to coerce him.

The petitioner argued that he had a meagre agricultural income and was unable to support his family. He stated that he and his wife were in poor health and financially dependent on his in-laws. He expressed willingness to maintain his mother if she stayed with him, but opposed the amount claimed, contending it was excessive.

Before the Family Court, the mother was examined as PW1. The son did not produce any evidence. The Family Court found merit in the claim and ordered the son to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month.

Aggrieved by the Family Court's order, the petitioner approached the High Court with a revision petition accompanied by a delay condonation plea. The delay in filing the revision petition was 1149 days. The High Court admitted the matter for consideration on 29.07.2025.

The High Court recorded: "A 92-year-old mother knocked on the doors of the Family Court, Kollam, for getting maintenance from her own son."

The Court expressed dismay at the conduct of the petitioner and observed: "I feel deeply ashamed, being a member of this society, where a son is fighting with his mother, aged 100, merely to deny her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-!"

The Court noted that the mother was forced to testify and undergo cross-examination in the Family Court. It acknowledged the petitioner’s claim that the case was influenced by the elder brother but held: "Even if that is true, it is the duty of the petitioner to see that such a situation does not arise and that it should be solved within the four walls of the house."

On the argument that other siblings were also not maintaining the mother, the Court clarified: "It is not a defence to the son that there are other children to maintain the mother and therefore he need not pay maintenance."

The High Court remarked: "A son is indebted to his parents in so many ways, and it is the duty of the son to serve his parents."

It further stated: "No matter your age, you will always need your mother. Despite the profound bond between a mother and her son, when the son gets married and starts his own family, he often forgets that his mother still needs him in her life."

Reflecting on the dynamics of aging, the Court stated: "When the parents grow old, their tastes, attitudes and temperaments may differ. There will be childish habits in all people when they become old."

On the petitioner’s contention regarding his willingness to maintain the mother if she resided with him, the Court replied: "It is not a charity; it is the duty of every son to look after his mother. If he fails to do so, he should be ashamed of himself."

Also Read: “The Law Safeguards Both Human and Animal Life”: Kerala High Court Directs Formation of District Panels for Stray Dog Attack Compensation | Halts Euthanasia Provision Pending Further Orders

The Court further expressed that the litigation could have been avoided and recorded: "A 92-year-old mother ought not have approached a court of law for getting maintenance when her children are alive."

The Court concluded that it found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's findings and stated: "I am of the considered opinion that this Revision Petition is to be dismissed with heavy costs to the petitioner. But, no notice is issued to the 1st respondent. Therefore, I am not dismissing the case with cost."

Accordingly, the Court ordered: "This Revision Petition (Family Court) is dismissed in limine."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri. B. Mohanlal, Smt. P.S. Preetha, Shri. Aswin V. Nair, Shri. Karthik J Sekhar, Shri. Abijith M., Smt. Avani Nair, Smt. Jayaprabha Arjun, Smt. Praveena T., Shri. Motty Jiby Vasudevan

For the Respondents: SR PP, Sri. Hrithwik C.S.

Case Title: Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:56282

Case Number: RPFC No. 253 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan