One of the recurring questions in maintenance jurisprudence is whether a mother can seek financial support from her children when her husband is alive and is allegedly providing for her. This issue becomes particularly relevant in India, where the social fabric emphasises the responsibility of children towards their aged parents, but where legal obligations often need to be invoked to ensure dignity and protection for vulnerable individuals—especially elderly women.
Kerala High Court’s 2025 decision in Farookh v. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja, R.P.(F.C.) No. 375 of 2025, squarely addressed this issue and settled the legal position: a mother’s statutory right to claim maintenance from her children is independent of her husband’s duty to maintain her. The judgment reinforces the social-justice framework of Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (formerly Section 125 CrPC), which aims to prevent destitution and protect vulnerable family members.
Facts of the Case
In R.P.(F.C.) No. 375 of 2025, the 60-year-old respondent-mother, Kadeeja, filed a maintenance petition (M.C. No. 229/2022) before the Family Court, Tirur, under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS). She sought ₹25,000 per month from her son, Farookh, claiming that she had:
- no source of income,
- no employment, and
- no means to support herself.
The Family Court, after considering the evidence, granted her ₹5,000 per month as maintenance. Dissatisfied, the son filed a revision before the Kerala High Court.
The Son’s Defences
The son raised several defences:
- His mother was allegedly rearing cattle and earning sufficient income.
- Her husband (RW1) was alive, a fisherman owning a boat, and was providing financial support.
- He had his own family, including a wife and child, to maintain.
- His mother’s claim of his monthly income of ₹2 lakh (from Gulf employment) was exaggerated.
However, the son did not enter the witness box to substantiate his claims, nor did he produce any documentary proof of his income or his mother’s alleged earnings. The only testimony supporting his claims was from his father (RW1).
Family Court’s Findings
The Family Court rejected the son’s defences, holding that:
- the mother had no independent income,
- the father’s claim of fully supporting her was unreliable,
- the son had sufficient means to contribute, and
- ₹5,000 per month was a reasonable amount.
High Court Outcome
The Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the son’s revision petition.
Statutory Framework: Section 144 BNSS (Former Section 125 CrPC)
Section 144 BNSS, which replaces Section 125 CrPC, retains the same objective: to provide a swift, summary remedy to persons who cannot maintain themselves. The provision covers wives, children (legitimate and illegitimate), and parents.
Section 144(1)(d) BNSS
It explicitly imposes a duty on:
“a person having sufficient means to maintain his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.”
This means:
- The obligation is independent,
- It arises solely when the parent cannot maintain themselves,
- It is not conditioned on whether another person (such as the spouse) is already providing maintenance.
The law recognises the social reality that aged parents—particularly mothers—may remain economically dependent and vulnerable despite living with or being married to someone. The child’s duty supplements, rather than replaces, that of the spouse.
Court’s Analysis
1. A Mother’s Right to Claim Maintenance From Her Children is Independent of Her Husband’s Duty
The Court clarified:
“The right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her.”
Whether the husband is alive or has income does not absolve the son of his statutory duty. Even if the husband is providing some support, the mother may still claim maintenance if:
- the support is inadequate, or
- she is unable to maintain herself in dignity, or
- she requires additional financial stability.
This interpretation aligns with the welfare objective of Section 144 BNSS and the constitutional values of Articles 15(3) and 39, which mandate the protection of women and the aged.
2. The Husband’s Claimed Support was Neither Proved Nor Sufficient
The son argued that the mother’s husband (RW1) was a fisherman owning a boat and was maintaining her. The Court rejected this argument because:
- The evidence was unreliable,
- The Family Court had already found it untrustworthy,
- There was no documentary proof of income or capacity.
Thus, even on facts, the husband’s alleged support was insufficient to extinguish the son’s obligation.
3. It is Morally and Legally Unacceptable for a Wealthy Son to Expect His Aged Mother to Rear Cattle for Income
The Court strongly condemned the son’s argument:
“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. Cattle rearing is physically demanding work, especially for a sexagenarian.”
This underscores a crucial moral dimension: maintenance is not merely about survival—it is about dignity, comfort, and respect in old age.
4. A Son Cannot Refuse Maintenance Obligations on the Ground That He Must Support His Own Wife and Child
The Court clarified that:
Marrying and having a family does not dilute one’s obligation towards aged parents.
Family responsibility extends in both directions: towards spouse and children, and towards elderly parents.
5. The Son Had Sufficient Means, and the Maintenance Amount Was Reasonable
The mother claimed that the son earned ₹2 lakh per month in the Gulf. Though the son denied this, he produced no proof. Courts have consistently held that when a person’s earning capacity lies within their own knowledge, they must produce evidence—else the court may draw an adverse inference.
Thus, the ₹5,000 monthly maintenance was found reasonable and even “if not inadequate,” according to the Court.
Conclusion
Kerala High Court’s decision provides a clear and socially conscious answer to the question:
Yes, a mother is entitled to maintenance from her children even if her husband is alive and financially supporting her.
This is because:
- Her right under Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) is independent.
- The obligation of children is statutory, moral, and absolute, provided they have sufficient means.
- The purpose of the law is not technical compliance but the prevention of destitution and the protection of elderly women.
- Maintenance ensures dignity, security, and respect—values deeply embedded in Indian social and constitutional philosophy.
The 2025 Kerala High Court ruling thus stands as an important affirmation of family responsibility, gender justice, and the protection of the elderly. It reflects not merely a legal mandate but also a moral vision of what a compassionate society must strive for.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams