Parents can retrospectively demand maintenance: Higher Regional Court | Kerala News

Kochi: The Kerala Supreme Court has clarified that courts do not have to consider factors such as law and religion when retrospectively granting maintenance to parents of their children.

A departmental bench, composed of Justices A Mohammed Mushtaq and Sophy Thomas, said alimony cannot be denied with retrospective effect simply because it is not specifically mentioned in the law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling came as part of the decision on the appeal of an 80-year-old father from Malappuram who is of the Christian religion. The 80-year-old appealed after his application to the Malappuram Family Court for retrospective child support was denied. The decision of the family court was based on the finding that the law does not provide for retrospective granting of maintenance.

The lower court said that Indian law on Christian marriage does not even refer to the granting of alimony to a wife or children. The court was also burdened by the fact that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) nor the Act on the Care and Support of the Elderly made mention of alimony payments with retrospective effect.

However, the Supreme Court held that the principles of law would be formed on the basis of society’s customs, culture and traditions. Therefore, the social life system based on the beliefs of the parties in the case can be considered. The Ten Commandments of the Bible refer to respect for parents. Even if it can be said that the protection of older people in old age is the responsibility of the state, children cannot escape their responsibility in this regard, especially in the current social structure. Insofar as we can claim living expenses prospectively, we can also claim them retrospectively. Self-respecting parents may be reluctant to turn to the courts in the hope and belief that their children will meet their needs.

Such self-respect, patience and love cannot be used to retrospectively deny the alimony due to them, the court said.

The Division Bench also overturned the lower court’s order and remanded the case to family court. The Supreme Court also ordered the defendants in the case to appear in person before the family court and the court to deliver its verdict within two months.