Right To Claim Maintenance From Children Independent Of Spousal Support | Kerala High Court Dismisses Revision In Maintenance Case Under Section 144 BNSS
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held that a woman’s entitlement to seek maintenance from her children under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a distinct and standalone right, unaffected by whether her husband has a duty to support her . Addressing a challenge to a maintenance order, the Court concluded that the mother had no independent means and that the son, who was found to possess sufficient income, was legally bound to contribute to her upkeep. It affirmed that the obligation of a child to maintain an aged parent operates separately from any spousal responsibility and therefore upheld the Family Court’s direction granting monthly maintenance.
The dispute arose from a petition filed by a mother seeking monthly maintenance from her son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, later referred to in the judgment with reference to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She stated that she had no employment, income, or means to support herself. Although her husband was alive, she asserted that he was not providing adequate financial support. The son contested this claim and argued that his mother was maintaining herself by rearing cattle and earning income from it. He further contended that her husband, who worked as a fisherman and owned a boat, was providing maintenance. He also stated that he had his own family to support.
During the proceedings, the mother gave evidence that she lacked any source of income. The son did not testify to rebut this assertion, nor did he produce documents showing his actual earnings. The husband was examined as a witness and stated that he was providing support, which the Family Court later found unreliable.
The Court recorded that “the respondent is 60 years old” and that she asserted she had “no employment or means to support herself.” It noted that the petitioner argued she was “rearing cattle and earning enough income” and that RW1 “is a fisherman owning a boat and is providing maintenance to her.” The Court observed that the petitioner also claimed he had to maintain his wife and child.
The Court stated that “it has come out in evidence that the petitioner is employed in the Gulf and has sufficient means to maintain the respondent.” Referring to the argument based on RW1’s testimony, the Court recorded that the claim that the husband was providing maintenance “cannot be believed.”
The Court discussed Section 144 BNSS and stated that the provision is “a measure of social justice, especially enacted to protect women, children and aged parents.” It observed that it must be “construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife, children and parents.”
The Court stated that “filial duty towards an aged parent involves providing physical, emotional and financial support, which is both a moral and legal obligation.” It recorded that Section 144(1)(d) “casts an obligation to the children having sufficient means to maintain their father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.”
Addressing the petitioner’s main argument, the Court recorded that the right of a mother to claim maintenance is independent, stating: “The right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her.” The Court further stated: “The fact that the husband of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the son of his independent statutory obligation… to support his mother if she needs it.”
On the contention regarding cattle rearing, the Court observed: “It is quite unfortunate and inappropriate for an affluent son to tell his aged mother that she should go to cattle rearing to earn her livelihood.” It added that “cattle rearing is a physically demanding work” and that there was “absolutely no evidence to prove that the respondent is engaged in cattle rearing.”
The Court recorded that the petitioner did not produce any document to prove income or rebut the respondent’s evidence. It also stated: “A son cannot escape from the liability to maintain his aged parents merely because he is married and has a family.”
The Court stated: “Considering the requirement of the respondent and the means of the petitioner, the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable, if not inadequate.” It then held: “I find no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, Smt. T.S. Sreekutty
For the Respondent: No appearance recorded apart from party details in the judgment
Case Title: Farookh v. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:83182
Case Number: RPFC No. 375 of 2025
Bench: Justice Kauser Edappagath
