Neglect And Cruelty Towards Elderly Parents Violates Article 21 | Allahabad HC Slams Sons’ Conduct And Orders Full Compensation To Father
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Allahabad Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar directed the State authorities to release compensation amounting to Rs. 21,17,758/- to a senior citizen petitioner, observing that disputes initiated by his sons cannot obstruct the rightful claim of the petitioner. The Court recorded the sons’ unconditional apology and the petitioner’s willingness to share compensation voluntarily, and thus ordered the disbursal of the entire compensation in favour of the petitioner. The Court further stated that if the sons cause any future interference, it will not hesitate to pass stringent orders.
The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the State authorities to release the compensation amount of Rs. 21,17,758/- due to the petitioner against the acquisition of his land and superstructure. The petitioner, aged over 75 years, had received a payment notice dated 16.01.2025 quantifying the said compensation. However, the amount remained unreleased due to a dispute between the petitioner and his two sons, who claimed a share in the compensation.
The Court recorded that on 17.07.2025, it entertained the matter, noting from the State counsel that the compensation for the superstructure had been prepared. However, the disbursal was hindered due to the sons’ claim of co-contribution. Counsel for the sons filed an impleadment application stating that they had also contributed to the construction and were entitled to a share.
The petitioner, represented by his counsel, refuted this claim, stating that both sons were settled in Surat and Mumbai and had not contributed financially. He contended that the relationship had deteriorated after the compensation was fixed, resulting in alleged physical and emotional abuse by the sons. He further submitted that an FIR had been lodged and maintained that the construction was carried out solely by him using his own resources.
The Court had adjourned the matter on the sons’ counsel’s request to explore amicable resolution. On the next hearing, the petitioner appeared in person before the Court, visually infirm and aged, to place his grievances. His sons, Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sanjay Gupta, were also present and identified through their counsel.
The primary dispute revolved around the disbursal of the quantified compensation, which had been delayed due to the sons' objection claiming shared ownership or entitlement. The petitioner insisted on receiving the entire compensation, citing sole ownership and construction.
On the other hand, the sons, through their counsel, expressed willingness to apologise and resolve the dispute amicably. They conveyed their intent not to interfere further and submitted that they would accept whatever portion the petitioner decided to share voluntarily.
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State confirmed the compensation amount and raised no objection to its release in the petitioner’s favour.
The case also involved police complaints and a Panchayat-led settlement process, which further supported the resolution achieved before the Court.
The Court began its observations by recording with concern that the real impediment in the disbursal of compensation was the “bitter and unfortunate conflict between the petitioner and his sons.” The Court observed, "It is deeply unsettling that no sooner was the compensation announced than the petitioner was subjected to acts of aggression and cruelty by his own children."
The Court remarked on the serious societal implications, stating, "There exists no greater societal failure, no deeper moral bankruptcy, than when a civilised society turns away from the silent suffering of its elders."
The Bench continued, "Parents spend the most vital years of their lives toiling for the nourishment, education, and future of their children, often with no expectation in return. But to be repaid in the winter of their lives with cruelty, neglect, or abandonment is not only a moral disgrace but also a legal violation."
Further elaborating on the duties of children, the Court stated, "It is both a sacred moral duty and a statutory obligation for children to protect the dignity, well-being, and care of their ageing parents."
The Court declared, "The twilight of life must not be marked by silence, isolation, or pain. No civilised society can condone, let alone ignore, such betrayal of our elders." It added, "The courts, in their role as protectors of the vulnerable, must rise as the last bastion of compassion when filial duty collapses."
Citing constitutional principles, the Court held, "Neglect, cruelty, or abandonment of elderly parents is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to life with dignity. A home that has turned hostile for an ageing parent is no longer a sanctuary; it is a site of injustice."
The judgment relied on the precedent set in Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India and Others [W.P. (Civil) No. 193 of 2016]. The Supreme Court in that case had stated, "Social justice remains a touchstone of our nation building... The rights of elderly persons is one such emerging situation that was perhaps not fully foreseen by our Constitution framers."
The Court adopted this reasoning and stated the organic nature of the Constitution. "Fortunately, our Constitution is organic and this Court is forward looking. This combination has resulted in path-breaking developments in law, particularly in the sphere of social justice."
It acknowledged the petitioner’s ordeal, stating, "The petitioner narrated, with deep pain and distress, how his own sons subjected him to physical and emotional trauma. He alleged that they even went so far as to physically bite him and displayed injuries sustained at their hands."
Yet the petitioner, the Court recorded, demonstrated a “father’s heart full of forgiveness” and expressed his intent to voluntarily share a portion of the compensation.
The Court noted the sons’ unconditional apology, stating, "The sons have tendered their unconditional apology before this Court and assured that no such unfortunate conduct shall occur in the future." It also took on record the assurance from their counsel that they would abide by the petitioner’s discretion.
The Court observed that the petitioner was the undisputed owner of the acquired property and that the State had no objection to releasing the compensation. It noted the reconciliatory approach and willingness of the petitioner and his sons to resolve the dispute amicably.
The Court stated, "In light of the undertakings given by the petitioner and his sons, and upon assurance from the State counsel that compensation shall be ensured at the earliest in favour of the petitioner, this Court sees no need to issue any further direction at this stage."
However, it issued a cautionary directive, stating, "It is made clear that should the sons, who had moved the impleadment application, cause any annoyance or interference in the future, learned counsel for the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a recall application, and this Court shall not hesitate to pass appropriate and stringent orders."
The Court concluded, "The compensation amount of Rs. 21,17,758/- is accordingly directed to be released in favour of the petitioner at the earliest."
The writ petition was thereby disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri Ganga Dhar Shukla, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Ambrish Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State; Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2; Shri P.K. Singh, Advocate for the sons
Case Title: Ram Dular Gupta vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:116884-DB
Case Number: WRIT - C No. 15359 of 2025
Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar
