Punjab High Court quotes Upanishad, slaps son with Rs 50,000 fine for denying mother room in family home

Referring to the Taittiriya Upanishad (Shikshavalli 1.11.2), the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated: “Matru Devo Bhava Pitru Devo Bhava Acharya Devo Bhava Atithi Devo Bhava,” to reflect the traditional values of Indian society and the duties expected from every individual.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said the petitioner must deposit Rs 50,000 in his mother’s account within one month.

The verse translates to: “Be one to whom a mother is as God, Be one to whom a father is as God, Be one to whom a teacher is as God, Be one to whom a guest is as God.”

“The present case is a glaring example of a departure from the moral and cultural values that have formed the foundation of Indian society. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conduct of the petitioner deserves to be deprecated in the strongest terms,” the May 20 order read.

‘Traditional ethos’

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the traditional ethos of Indian society regards the care and maintenance of parents as a sacred and indispensable obligation.
• However, with changing times, these moral values are gradually declining, and many parents and senior citizens are being neglected or denied maintenance by their financially capable children or relatives.
• The Parliament enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to safeguard the rights and interests of parents and senior citizens who are in the twilight of their lives and unable to meet their basic needs, the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out.
• Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000, to be deposited by the petitioner in his mother’s account within one month.

Mother forced to approach tribunal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the present case depicted an unfortunate situation where the mother was constrained to approach the tribunal by filing an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking the right of entry to the house.

The court noted that the said application was opposed “tooth and nail” by her son. Consequently, the tribunal conducted a local inquiry and, by an order dated May 15, 2025, granted the mother the right to access and reside in the house in question. The petitioner was directed to vacate one room situated on the ground floor of the house for the residence of the mother, to construct a separate bathroom within three months, and to provide her with basic amenities.

It was placed on record that the house in question, one room of which was allocated to the mother for residence, was undisputedly owned by her late husband. It was added that the same was constructed over 14 marlas of land and comprises a double-storeyed structure.

Son’s claim

• It was claimed by the son that after the demise of the petitioner’s father, a dispute arose between the petitioner and mother concerning his estate, particularly concerning rival wills, one allegedly executed in favour of the mother and the other in favour of the petitioner.
• The son submitted that on account of the said disputes, a civil suit concerning the property of the deceased is pending between the parties, wherein the civil court has restrained the parties from alienating the property.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the order of the tribunal caused pain to the petitioner and triggered him to institute a statutory appeal before the appellate tribunal.
• The petitioner, however, remained unsuccessful as the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal by an order dated March 25 and affirmed the earlier order.
• Aggrieved, the son moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the appellate tribunal’s order.

Arguments

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sidhant Bhonsle argued before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that he was willing to keep his mother with him.

He further submitted that such willingness is subject to the condition that the petitioner’s siblings would not be permitted to enter the house in question.

However, he opposed the directions issued by the tribunal requiring the petitioner to vacate one room and construct a separate bathroom for the mother, contending that the same would amount to partial eviction of the petitioner from the premises.

Bhonsle emphasised the past conduct of the mother and submitted that she had lodged a complaint before the police alleging that the petitioner intended to kill her.