Madras High Court Rejects Plea For Maintenance From Bedridden Senior Citizen Husband, Says Can't Burden Him With Additional Responsibility

Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the husband had been neglected by his family despite his medical needs. The court noted that the husband also had a right to be protected under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held that it had to strike a balance between the rights of both parties to be maintained.

“It is also relevant to note that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, senior citizens are entitled to be maintained by their children. In the present case, the respondent has been neglected by his children, including the petitioners, despite his medical needs. Courts cannot ignore the balance of obligations under both statutes – while a wife has rights under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a senior citizen also has a statutory right to maintenance and medical care under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007,” the court said.

The wife had filed the criminal revision petition against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi dismissing her maintenance petition. The wife had filed the maintenance petition seeking a maintenance of Rs. 30,000 as monthly maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

The wife submitted that the husband was employed in a public limited company and was drawing a salary of Rs. 17,000 at the time of retirement. She also stated that the husband also owned immovable properties and had received retirement benefits of Rs. 15,00,000. The wife further alleged that though the husband had financial means, he had not set aside any money to assist the marriage expenses of the daughter.

The husband, on the other hand, submitted that one of the daughter was already married and the son had attained majority and was earning Rs. 25,000 per month. The husband further submitted that the wife had filed multiple civil suits regarding the immovable properties. The husband also submitted that he was unable to receive his retirement benefits since the wife had filed a suit to restrain him.

The husband further submitted that he was 65 year old and had suffered a paralytic attack, was bedridden and needed atleast Rs. 5,000 per month towards his medical expense. He pointed out that he was completely neglected by the family and was struggling to defend the pending civil cases.

The court noted that a wife would be entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if it is shown that she is unable to maintain herself. The court added that the object of the provision was to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support their dependants.

The court further remarked that the wife's right is subject to proof of neglect and the husband's financial capacity.

In the present case, the court noted that the wife had claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 when the husband was drawing a salary of Rs. 17,000. The court opined that the though the husband had received Rs. 3,00,000 towards retirement benefits, that coupled with pension would be enough for his maintenance.

The court thus held that the trial court had rightly opined that the wife was able to maintain herself and that the husband could not be burdened with the additional responsibility of paying maintenance.

Thus, finding the court's order to be reasonable, the court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P. R. Prithiviraj

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Karuppasamy Pandian For Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan

Case Title: M v. M

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 356

Case No: Crl. R. C.(MD)No.417 of 2024