Summary of this article
Bombay High Court allowed elderly parents access to son's house in Mumbai for medical visits
Justice Jitendra Jain condemned son's legal action against his parents
The court highlighted a decline in moral values and filial duty in society and ordered the son to care for his parents during their medical treatment
In today's age, there is something wrong in the upbringing wherein a son has dragged aged parents to court instead of taking them on a pilgrimage as done by Shravan Kumar, rued the Bombay High Court, refusing relief to a man seeking a restraining order against his parents.
A bench of Justice Jitendra Jain, in an order passed on Thursday, declined to grant any relief to the man who had sought an order restraining his parents from using his house in suburban Goregaon when they visit Mumbai for their medical treatment.
The man had challenged a January 2018 order of a civil court in Mumbai refusing to restrain his parents from using the residential premises.
The high court, in the order, observed this was one more instance and "sorry state of affairs" where a son, instead of discharging the moral duty of taking care of his ailing and aged parents, has filed a suit seeking restrain order.
Justice Jain said the moral values inculcated in our culture have fallen to such an extent that "we have forgotten Shravan Kumar who took his parents for pilgrimage and on the way laid down his life." Notably, Shravan Kumar was a character mentioned in the Hindu epic Ramayan who was known for his filial devotion.
"In today's age, there is something very seriously wrong in the upbringing of our children that a child is taking the parents to the court instead of the pilgrimage," the HC stated.
Justice Jain listed several aphorisms on parent-child relationship and said caring for one's parents is a sacred and moral duty.
"It's a labour of love that comes full circle because when you choose to honour, love, respect and care for your parents, it's not just the expression of one's gratitude, but it is honouring God himself," he noted.
"Sadly the harsh reality is sometimes totally otherwise, when you realise that parents can take care of ten children, but sometimes ten children cannot take care of their parents," the court added.
Referring to the case in hand, Justice Jain said he was of the view that the petitioner has to take care of his aged parents.
The court noted that at present, the parents are living with their third son in Kolhapur in south-western Maharashtra, but have to travel frequently to Mumbai, around 380km away, for medical treatment at the state-run J J Hospital.
The bench directed the petitioner son or his wife will go and receive the parents whenever they come to Mumbai, bring them to their residence and also accompany them to the hospital for treatment.
If there is any breach of the order or any inconvenience is caused to the parents then the petitioner son will be held in contempt of this order and appropriate proceedings will be taken against him, the court warned.
