'Neglect & Cruelty Towards Elderly Parents A Violation Of Article 21': Allahabad HC Slams Sons' Conduct After Govt Assesses Compensation To Father

A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar stressed that it is both a sacred moral duty and a statutory obligation for children to protect the dignity, well-being, and care of their ageing parents.

The bench added that as their physical strength wanes and ailments rise, parents do not seek charity, but security, empathy, and companionship from the very hands they once held and nurtured.

The Court made these observations while dealing with a writ petition filed by a 75-year-old man seeking release of over ₹21 Lacs as compensation for the acquisition of his land and superstructure by the authorities.

While the compensation had already been assessed and a payment notice was issued on January 16, 2025, the amount remained unpaid due to a dispute raised by the petitioner's sons, who claimed co-ownership in the superstructure.

On July 17, 2025, the Court recorded that the petitioner's two sons had opposed the full disbursal of the compensation to their father, as they argued that they had also contributed to the construction.

On the other hand, the petitioner contended that the entire superstructure was built using his own resources. He also alleged that after the compensation was announced, his sons had subjected him to severe mental and physical abuse. He also displayed injuries sustained at their hands.

On July 18, as well, the petitioner-father appeared before the Court claiming that no sooner was the compensation announced than the petitioner was subjected to acts of aggression and cruelty by his children.

However, despite the sons' conduct, the petitioner expressed willingness to share a portion of the compensation with his sons out of his own volition. Before the bench, the sons also tendered an unconditional apology in Court and assured that no such behaviour would be repeated.

Deeply anguished by the developments, the Court, at the outset, remarked thus:

"It is deeply unsettling that no sooner was the compensation announced than the petitioner was subjected to acts of aggression and cruelty by his own children... There exists no greater societal failure, no deeper moral bankruptcy, than when a civilised societ turns away from the silent suffering of its elders".

The Court observed with anguish the 'sheer apathy and misconduct' of the petitioner's sons and stated:

"Parents spend the most vital years of their lives toiling for the nourishment, education, and future of their children, often with no expectation in return. But to be repaid in the winter of their lives with cruelty, neglect, or abandonment is not only a moral disgrace but also a legal violation".

The Court emphasized that it is not just a moral obligation but a statutory and constitutional duty of children to care for their elderly parents:

"The Court firmly asserts that neglect, cruelty, or abandonment of elderly parents is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India , the right to life with dignity. A home that has turned hostile for an ageing parent is no longer a sanctuary; it is a site of injustice. The courts must not allow this silent suffering to continue under the garb of 'family privacy".

Importantly, the Court also remarked that when 'filial' duty collapses, the courts must rise as the "last bastion of compassion" to protect vulnerable elders.

Thus, after noting that the petitioner is the undisputed owner of the acquired land, and in view of the assurances by both parties, the Court ordered that the compensation be released in favour of the petitioner without further delay.

The Court also made it clear that if the sons caused any future interference, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court again, and it would pass 'stringent' orders.

With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of.