The maintenance jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — protects parents as much as wives and children, but it protects them against one thing only: the inability to maintain themselves. On 16 September 2026, the Madras High Court decided Crl. R.C. No. 97 of 2026, Suraj Goyal v. C.M. Goyal, a son's revision against an order requiring him to maintain his 83-year-old father, who had claimed ₹75,000 per month. Justice Sunder Mohan set the order aside: the record showed the father owned commercial property yielding substantial rent, held fixed deposits, and had filed contradictory affidavits about his income. The judgment is a crisp reminder that the provision exists to prevent vagrancy and destitution — not to compensate for emotional neglect or to arbitrate old family wounds.
The claim and the counter
The 83-year-old father sought ₹75,000 per month from his son, alleging that he was unable to support himself after the son diverted the family business. The Family Court awarded maintenance. In revision, the son\'s answer was documentary: the father owned commercial properties generating rental income and held fixed deposits — he was, in short, not destitute. The son also pointed to contradictions between the father\'s affidavits about his income across the proceedings.
What the High Court held
The High Court set aside the maintenance order. Two findings carried the judgment. First, the father had concealed sources of income, and his affidavits were mutually contradictory — a credibility failure that maintenance courts cannot overlook, because the entire jurisdiction runs on honest disclosure of means. Second, and more fundamentally, the father was receiving substantial rental income; a claimant who can maintain himself falls outside the provision altogether, whatever the state of his relationship with his children.
The court\'s framing bears repetition: maintenance under Section 125 CrPC — now Section 144 BNSS — aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It is not a mechanism to compensate for emotional neglect or to punish past misconduct, however sympathetic the circumstances may appear.
The two parallel remedies for parents
| Route | Forum and character | When it fits |
|---|---|---|
| Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) | Judicial Magistrate / Family Court; summary maintenance jurisdiction; interim and final monthly allowance; enforceable through warrants. | Where a genuinely dependent parent needs a regular allowance from a child with means, and the matter may be contested on evidence. |
| Senior Citizens Act, 2007 | Maintenance Tribunal (an executive forum); time-bound, simpler procedure; maintenance and, in defined circumstances, protection of the senior citizen\'s residence and property transfers. | Where speed matters, or where property transferred on the expectation of care is in issue. |
The two routes coexist, but the substantive threshold is common: inability to self-maintain. A parent with rent, pension or deposits sufficient for his needs will fail under both, and choosing the wrong battle — as this case illustrates — ends with the order being set aside and credibility spent.
Lessons for both generations
For claimant parents, the affidavit of means is the case. It must disclose every asset and income stream — rent, interest, pension — and explain concretely why they fall short of reasonable needs. Suppression is not a tactic; it is the seed of reversal. For children resisting inflated claims, the toolkit is the one deployed here: property records, rent agreements, bank statements and the claimant\'s own inconsistent filings. And for families as a whole, the deeper message is jurisdictional discipline — disputes about who wronged whom in the family business are civil disputes, and dressing them as maintenance claims serves neither the statute nor the family.
In Delhi, parents\' maintenance claims under Section 144 BNSS travel before the Family Courts, and Maintenance Tribunals function district-wise under the Senior Citizens Act; the principles applied by the Madras High Court in this revision govern those proceedings with equal force.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can parents claim maintenance from their children?
Yes. Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) entitles a father or mother unable to maintain themselves to claim maintenance from a child having sufficient means. A parallel and often faster remedy exists under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the Maintenance Tribunal.
What must a parent prove?
Two things: the claimant's inability to maintain himself or herself, and the child's sufficient means coupled with neglect or refusal to maintain. Ownership of income-yielding assets, rental receipts and deposits directly negate the first requirement, as this case shows.
What is the effect of concealing income in maintenance proceedings?
It can be fatal. Maintenance adjudication runs on financial disclosure, and contradictory or false affidavits destroy the claimant's credibility. Courts have consistently treated suppression of income — by either side — as a serious matter that can result in dismissal of the claim, recall of orders or costs.
Does bad or hurtful conduct by children entitle a parent to maintenance?
Not by itself. The court in this case emphasised that the remedy addresses destitution, not emotional neglect or past misconduct. Grievances about how a family business or relationship was handled belong to civil proceedings; the maintenance court asks only whether the claimant can sustain himself.