Bombay High Court Decries Decline of Filial Piety, Orders Son to Care for Ailing Parents

Spread the love

Bombay High Court Decries Decline of Filial Piety, Orders Son to Care for Ailing Parents

Mumbai: In a strongly-worded judgment that lamented the erosion of traditional values in modern society, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a son’s plea to legally bar his elderly parents from staying in his Mumbai home. The court invoked the ancient legend of Shravan Kumar to underscore the sacred duty of children towards their parents, a duty it found glaringly absent in the case before it.

The bench of Justice Jitendra Jain, in a ruling passed on Thursday, refused to grant any relief to the petitioner, who had challenged a January 2018 order from a lower civil court. That earlier order had also denied his request for a restraining order against his parents. The case revolved around a house in suburban Goregaon, which the parents needed to use as a base during their frequent trips to Mumbai for critical medical treatment at the state-run J.J. Hospital.

Justice Jain described the lawsuit as a “sorry state of affairs” and “one more instance” of a disturbing trend where children shirk their moral and ethical responsibilities. He expressed deep concern over the foundational values being imparted to the younger generation.

A Stark Contrast: From Pilgrimage to Courtroom

The Bombay High Court powerfully contrasted the petitioner’s actions with the archetype of filial devotion from Hindu scripture. “The moral values inculcated in our culture have fallen to such an extent that we have forgotten Shravan Kumar, who carried his blind parents on a pilgrimage and laid down his life for them on the way,” Justice Jain observed.

He elaborated on this dichotomy, stating, “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.” This comparison served as the emotional and ethical cornerstone of the judgment, highlighting a perceived cultural shift from selfless service to litigious self-interest.

The Bombay High Court on the Sacred Duty of Care

The order went beyond the immediate legal dispute to reflect broadly on the parent-child relationship. Justice Jain listed several aphorisms, emphasizing that caring for one’s parents is not merely a social expectation but a “sacred and moral duty.”

“It is a labour of love that comes full circle because when you choose to honour, love, respect and care for your parents, it is not just the expression of one’s gratitude, but it is honouring God himself,” the judge noted. He added a poignant, realistic note on contemporary family dynamics, remarking, “Sadly the harsh reality is that sometimes ten children cannot take care of their parents.”

Practical Directions and a Firm Warning

Shifting from philosophical observations to practical judicial orders, the court laid down specific instructions for the petitioner. Acknowledging that the parents currently live with a third son in Kolhapur—approximately 380 kilometers away—the court directed that whenever the parents travel to Mumbai for treatment, the petitioner or his wife must personally receive them and host them at the Goregaon residence.

Furthermore, the son was ordered to accompany his parents to the J.J. Hospital for their medical appointments, ensuring they receive proper care and support during their visits. The Bombay High court attached a stern warning to these directives, stating that any breach of the order or any inconvenience caused to the aged parents would result in the petitioner being held in contempt of court, inviting appropriate legal proceedings against him.

Conclusion: A Judicial Reaffirmation of Cultural Values

The Bombay High Court’s ruling transcends the specifics of a single family dispute, serving as a powerful societal admonition. By referencing Shravan Kumar, the judgment connects the law to a deeper cultural and ethical bedrock, reminding citizens of their enduring responsibilities. It underscores that while laws can be interpreted, certain moral duties are fundamental. The court not only provided justice to the aged parents but also delivered a broader message, championing the cause of the elderly and reinforcing the idea that the legal system can be a guardian of timeless values in an increasingly fragmented world. The verdict establishes that filial piety, while a cultural ideal, can, in matters of basic care and dignity, be enforced as a legal expectation.