Sitting in a relatively calm courtroom on Tuesday morning, the Kerala High Court dealt with a rather emotional dispute that quietly exposed the fragile layers of family responsibility. The matter wasn’t dramatic on the surface just a maintenance revision filed by a son dissatisfied with the Family Court’s direction. But as arguments unfolded, it became clear this was about something deeper: the dignity and security of an ageing mother.
Background
The case involved Farookh, a 42-year-old working in the Gulf, who challenged a July 2025 Family Court order that required him to pay ₹5,000 per month to his 60-year-old mother, Kadeeja. She had earlier sought ₹25,000, claiming she lacked any source of income.
The son disputed this, alleging she earned money through cattle rearing and that her husband a fisherman was already supporting her. His counsel also pointed out the financial burden of supporting his own wife and child.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kauser Edappagath didn’t appear impressed with most of the son’s arguments. At one point, the bench remarked in a tone that carried both firmness and disappointment:
“It is unfortunate and inappropriate for an affluent son to tell his aged mother to rear cattle to earn her livelihood.”
The judge stressed that cattle work is physically demanding and cannot be expected from a woman in her sixties. There was no proof she had any such income either. Interestingly, the court noted that the son didn’t even step into the witness box to assert his claims directly.
On the husband’s alleged financial support, the court took a clear view. Section 144 of the new BNSS (equivalent to Section 125 CrPC) gives parents an independent right to seek maintenance from their children, even if the other parent is alive.
“The right of a mother to claim maintenance from her son is independent and mutually exclusive,” the court observed, explaining that a son’s legal duty doesn’t vanish simply because the father may also have means.
The allegation that the mother was financially supported by her husband didn’t impress the bench. Evidence suggested otherwise, and the Family Court had already disbelieved the husband’s testimony.
Justice Edappagath also brushed aside the argument about the petitioner’s duties toward his own family. The judge pointed out that marriage or parenthood does not override the statutory responsibility to care for an elderly parent who cannot fend for herself.
Decision
Reviewing the son’s alleged monthly income claimed by the mother to be ₹2 lakh, though denied without proof the court said the ₹5,000 monthly amount fixed by the Family Court was modest, even “inadequate” given current realities.
Finding no merit in the revision, the High Court dismissed the petition, leaving the Family Court’s maintenance order intact.
Case Title: Farookh vs. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja
Case Number: RPFC No. 375 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 04 November 2025
