Introduction:
In Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma & Ors. (RPFC No. 253 of 2025), a division bench of the Kerala High Court led by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan considered a revision petition brought by the son (petitioner) challenging a Family Court’s order granting ₹2,000 per month maintenance to his 100‑year‑old mother. The petitioner argued that his mother was living with another son, and that other children were capable of maintaining her, rendering his liability redundant. The High Court emphatically rejected this contention, emphasizing that even if siblings are able to maintain their mother, that does not absolve the duty of an individual son under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court expressed sorrow and shame that a centenarian mother had to fight legal battles for subsistence from her own son.
Background:
The mother had originally filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court in 2022, which awarded ₹2,000 per month. Despite the order, the son failed to pay the amount, prompting revenue recovery proceedings. Over 1,000 days later, the son filed the revision petition, seeking to overturn the Family Court’s decision. He claimed that the mother resided with another adult son, and that other children were in a position to support her.
Arguments of the Petitioner (Son):
The petitioner, represented by Counsel B. Mohanlal, P.S. Preetha, Aswin V. Nair and others, contended that since the mother was cohabiting with another son and additional children were financially capable, he should not be legally obligated to pay maintenance. He argued it is unreasonable to impose duty on him alone, especially given his siblings’ presumed ability to support. He also cited delay in filing the revision — over 1,000 days — and sought to avoid payment on the ground of procedural lapse.
Arguments of the Respondent (Mother):
The mother, represented by Senior P.P. Hrithwik C.S., argued that Section 125 Cr.P.C. imposes a separate and personal liability on each son who has sufficient means, irrespective of the mother’s living arrangements or presence of other children. Maintenance is a statutory right of the mother, and the duty cast upon the individual son cannot be evaded by shifting blame to siblings. Further, she highlighted that the petitioner had already delayed compliance, necessitating recovery proceedings. Subjecting a 100‑year‑old to cross‑examination over delayed maintenance was an indignity.
Court’s Analysis & Judgment:
Justice Kunhikrishnan delivered a scathing rebuke of the petitioner’s approach. The Court held that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., each eligible child has an independent duty to maintain a destitute parent. The mere fact that the mother resides with another son or that siblings are otherwise able to maintain her does not provide a valid legal defence. The Court observed:
“In a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the mother for maintenance against her son, it is not a defence … that there are other children to maintain the mother … Even if the other children are not maintaining or … negative attitude, it is the duty of the petitioner … to look after the affairs of his own mother. Otherwise, he is not a human being.”
The Court further noted its deep remorse that the octogenarian mother—now aged 100—had to endure cross‑examination to secure a paltry ₹2,000 per month. It referred to her decade‑long waiting and delayed remedy, expressing personal shame:
“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/-!”
On the issue of delay in filing the revision (over 1,000 days), the Court considered but declined to impose costs, noting that notice had not been issued to the mother at the time the petition was filed. The Court dismissed the revision petition in its entirety and upheld the Family Court’s maintenance order.
Legal Significance:
This judgment reinforces the statutory mandate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that each eligible son has an independent duty to support his mother, irrespective of others’ capacity or conduct. It highlights the humanitarian purpose of maintenance law: to protect the dignity and well‑being of destitute parents. The ruling draws a clear line against passing the liability to siblings and underscores the principle that legal technicalities cannot overshadow moral duty. It also emphasizes expedited justice over procedural delay, especially in cases involving vulnerable elderly individuals.