The Madras High Court has held that an aged father alleging that his son acquired his property and failed to provide moral support cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the statutory requirement of inability to maintain himself or destitution is established. Justice Sunder Mohan examined the father's properties, rental income, business earnings and conflicting asset declarations before setting aside the order awarding him ₹75,000 monthly maintenance.
Background
The dispute arose between Suraj Goyal and his father, C.M. Goyal @ Chandrakumar M. Goyal. The father approached the Family Court claiming that he was unable to maintain himself. He stated that he had built M/s Conjap Electronics Industries and acquired several properties from his business earnings. He alleged that after Suraj joined the business in 2021 and received a 50% share, differences arose and Suraj later started a separate company.
The father further alleged that Suraj and his wife had induced him to execute a settlement deed and that he was subsequently prevented from participating in the business. He also claimed that electricity, maintenance and property-tax payments concerning his apartment were not being made. Suraj disputed these allegations and contended that his father owned several commercial properties, earned rental and business income and had fixed deposits exceeding ₹10 lakh.
Suraj also challenged the father's two Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities, pointing out inconsistencies between the affidavit filed on December 22, 2023 and the subsequent affidavit dated March 18, 2024. The Family Court nevertheless held that the father was unable to maintain himself and directed Suraj to pay ₹75,000 per month.
The High Court examined the rental agreements marked as Ex.R7 to Ex.R11, which indicated rental income of about ₹82,000 per month from the father's commercial properties. The Court noted that this income had not been disclosed in his first affidavit. In that affidavit, he had stated that he had no property at present and had no income from other sources such as shares and dividends.
The second affidavit disclosed rental income from “Tony Vision” and “Flowers Road”, besides four fixed deposits of ₹1.50 lakh each. The Court compared these declarations with the underlying documents and noted that the rental agreement for “Tony Vision” reflected ₹30,000 monthly rent, whereas the affidavit mentioned ₹16,000. Bank records also contained credits relating to rents from other properties.
The Court found that the explanations given during cross-examination did not align with the rental agreements and bank records. It also considered evidence of business income and the father's financial capacity to give substantial amounts to his grandchildren. The Court observed:
"The evidence therefore, suggests that he is not a man who is living in vagrancy or destitution."
Referring to Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, the High Court explained that Section 125 CrPC is intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution and provide support where a person is unable to maintain themselves.
Justice Sunder Mohan clarified that the Court was not deciding whether the father had been neglected by his son or whether the children's conduct was morally justified. The issue was whether the father satisfied the statutory requirements for maintenance.
The Court also noted that the father had separately challenged the settlement deed through proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, a civil suit and a writ petition. The Court held that the property dispute and absence of moral support could not substitute the statutory requirement for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The High Court held that the Family Court's approach could not be sustained on the material available. While acknowledging the difficult family circumstances, Justice Sunder Mohan held that sentimental considerations could not replace the requirements of law.
The Court observed:
"Though one would sympathise with the respondent for whatever that has happened in his relationship with his children, this Court is unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Family Court that he has to be compensated financially for that purpose."
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the October 15, 2025 Family Court order awarding ₹75,000 monthly maintenance.
It directed that maintenance already paid by the son would not be recovered and closed the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.
