NIRMAL SINGH Vs. KULBIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is in challenge against an order passed for payment of Rs. 2500/- per month to each one of the parents. The contention in defence by the petitioner before the Forum below was that the father is possessed of property and he is not entitled to claim anything. The petitioner's case is founded on a plea that the father has issued an advertisement disowning and disinheriting him from his moveable and immovable property and therefore, he cannot treat the petitioner as a son and claim maintenance. An act not to provide anything to the petitioner by the father in succession, if he leaves behind an estate, cannot efface the blood ties and the obligation of a son to maintain his father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. A publication is a manner of expression of his ire and making it known to the public of his displeasure and shame on the son for his conduct. It ought not to be taken as disentitling him from claiming maintenance. Indeed, no legal liability founded on status of relationship or contract could be annulled by mere oral release. The liability could be discharged only in a manner known to law by passing of consideration. In evidence, it was elicited that there is a suit instituted by the father against the son for recovery of possession of property of which he claimed as belonging to him. It is an admission of the fact that the petitioner is in possession and the father is not able to make any productive use of the same. It is also brought out in defence that the father has allowed some vacant rooms which are available but not let out deliberately. So long as the father was not shown to have particular source of income which can entitle him for claiming maintenance against the son, who is otherwise legally bound to maintain him, the petitioner cannot argue that even the amount of Rs. 2500/- each to the parents which has been granted against him as high and he cannot be compelled to pay.

(2.) The petitioner has another argument that the father had made claim only against him and not against another son. If the father has one son offering him help in some way and he has problem with reference to only one of his sons, who is not prepared to support him, it should be left to the father to decide against whom he will file a suit and against whom he will not unnecessarily vex with litigation which he could otherwise secure even without any tussle from such an obliging son. I will find no justification for interference with the order which has been passed by the Forum and the writ petition challenging the same is without merit. The writ petition is dismissed.