Punjab And Haryana High Court Said Taking Care Of Elderly Parents Is Bounden Duty

The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the petition filed by the son against the 76-year-old mother challenging the order of the single bench. The High Court held that taking care of elderly parents is not only a moral but also a duty bound under the Maintenance of Parents and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act.

Filing the petition, the son said that his mother had given a complaint under the Maintenance of Parents and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act in Fatehabad. The complaint said that the petitioner had asked him to transfer the shop but he also got the house transferred fraudulently and now he neither takes care of them and is harassed on the contrary.

On the complaint, the SDM rejected the transfer deed of the house and shop made by the mother in the name of the son and ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs 2,000 per month to his mother. While hearing the appeal, the DC set aside the order of the SDM and granted relief to the petitioner.

When the petitioner’s mother filed a petition in the High Court, the Single Bench, while rejecting the DC’s decision, upheld the order of the SDM. Filing the appeal, the petitioner has now challenged the order of the Single Bench. Dismissing the appeal, the High Court said that the contention of the petitioner that the SDM gave more than the demand to the mother of the petitioner which is outside the jurisdiction is not correct, as she has the right to take cognizance under the Act. At the same time, the High Court said that there is no flaw in the order of the SDM. As such, no relief can be given to the petitioner.

The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the petition filed by the son against the 76-year-old mother challenging the order of the single bench. The High Court said that taking care of elderly parents is not only a moral but also a duty bound under the Maintenance of Parents and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act.

Filing the petition, the son said that his mother had given a complaint under the Maintenance of Parents and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act in Fatehabad. The complaint said that the petitioner had asked him to transfer the shop but he also got the house transferred fraudulently and now he neither takes care of them and is harassed on the contrary.

On the complaint, the SDM rejected the transfer deed of the house and shop made by the mother in the name of the son and ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs 2,000 per month to his mother. While hearing the appeal, the DC set aside the order of the SDM and granted relief to the petitioner.

When the petitioner’s mother filed a petition in the High Court, the Single Bench, while rejecting the DC’s decision, upheld the order of the SDM. Filing the appeal, the petitioner has now challenged the order of the Single Bench. Dismissing the appeal, the High Court said that the contention of the petitioner that the SDM gave more than the demand to the mother of the petitioner which is outside the jurisdiction is not correct, as she has the right to take cognizance under the Act. At the same time, the High Court said that there is no flaw in the order of the SDM. As such, no relief can be given to the petitioner.