CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has observed that the absence of moral or family support in old age cannot be compensated with money, while setting aside an order directing a son to pay Rs 75,000 monthly maintenance to his 80-year-old father.

Justice Sunder Mohan observed that while one may sympathise with a father over strained relationships with his children, the court cannot accept the Family Court’s view that he should be financially compensated for it.

The father, CM Goyal alias Chandrakumar M Goyal, had sought maintenance stating he was unable to maintain himself. He submitted that he had run a successful business manufacturing household appliances and computers, provided a good education to his children, and given his son a 50% share in the business.

He further alleged that after purchasing a flat in Perambur, his son and daughter-inlaw deceived him into executing a settlement deed and later defrauded him during his illness. He also claimed his son stopped paying property tax and electricity bills for the apartment, leaving him without any source of income. Aggrieved by the Family Court order directing him to pay Rs 75,000 per month, his son Suraj Goyal filed a revision petition before the High Court.

During the hearing, Suraj argued that his father had ill-treated the family and had extra-marital affairs. He submitted that although his father settled the property in his name while retaining life interest, he later sought to cancel the deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. After failing in that attempt, the father filed the maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC as an afterthought, the son contended.

Allowing the petition, Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the case was certainly a hard one as the son was accused of obtaining his father’s self-acquired property through a settlement and failing to provide moral support. However, this alone did not entitle the father to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless prescribed conditions were satisfied.

“No amount of money can compensate for the lack of moral or family support a person is entitled to in his old age,” the court said, adding it could only hope that good sense would prevail and the parties would resolve their issues. Holding that the ground on which the Family Court awarded maintenance could not be accepted, the High Court set aside the order.