The Supreme Court on Monday slammed two sons during a hearing. The court did this because these sons were not taking care of their father and stopped giving them financial help.
Not only this, but the father was also thrown out of the ancestral house. After this, the father was forced to live by arranging for his livelihood himself.
A bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar clearly told the sons’ lawyer that sons cannot behave in this manner with their father. Taking care of the father is one of his duties under the law.
The Supreme Court said, “You are not doing anything for your father. He is your father. It has been told to us that both of you work in a multinational company. Do not forget that Whatever you are today is because of your father.”
Supreme Court was also apprised that both the sons had occupied the ancestral house and are also receiving rent from it. On this, the Supreme Court said, ‘Even you have got this property due to your father. How can both of you consume it without giving your father an economic share? ‘
This case is related to a family of Delhi. Both the sons are living with their wives and children at the ancestral house in Karol Bagh. Both had forced their father to leave the house.
A tribunal had last year directed the sons to give Rs 7,000 to their father for living. But the sons appealed against this order in court.
They challenged the validity of some provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. The High Court agreed to investigate their petition and also stayed the implementation of the tribunal’s order. After this, the father was forced to knock on the door of the Supreme Court.
Accepting the father’s plea, the Supreme Court asked the sons to make a decent system so that their father could live well. The Supreme Court also said that Rs 7,000 per month is not enough and has asked the sons to come up with better financial help.
On Monday, Son’s lawyer proposed to pay Rs 10,000 for his father every month. Knowing this, the bench expressed concern that the sons are also occupying the ancestral house and earning rent from it.
Justice Khanwilkar said that the father cannot be denied the benefit of this ancestral property. The Court asked the lawyer, “Now you tell us whether you are ready to sell that house with your own hands or should we appoint a court commissioner who will sell it and divide the money between the three.”
The Supreme Court has given the sons one week’s time for consideration.
