Bombay HC criticises son seeking restraining order against parents

The Bombay High Court has expressed strong concern over a plea filed by a Mumbai-based man seeking to stop his parents, who live in Kolhapur, from using his suburban home during their medical visits to the city.

The court directed him to ensure that his parents face no inconvenience and that they are treated with “utmost respect, love and care.”

The order was issued in response to the son’s challenge to a 2018 City Civil Court decision that had refused his request to bar his parents from accessing his residence. The single-judge bench of Justice Jitendra S Jain upheld the earlier ruling and criticised the son for filing such a plea.

Justice Jain, invoking the example of Shravan Kumar, lamented the decline of family values. He remarked that it was yet another example of a sad state of affairs in which a son, instead of fulfilling his moral duty to care for his ailing and elderly parents, had approached the court for a restraining order. He said the moral values rooted in the culture had declined to such an extent that people had forgotten Shravan Kumar, who had carried his parents on a pilgrimage and sacrificed his life for them.

The court expressed deeper concern about the broader societal trend reflected in such disputes.

Justice Jain said that, in today’s age, something was seriously wrong in the upbringing of children if a child was taking their parents to court instead of on a pilgrimage.

He further noted that caring for one’s parents was not only a sacred and moral duty but also a labour of love that eventually came full circle.

According to him, when a person chose to honour, love, respect, and care for their parents, it was not merely an expression of gratitude but also an act of honouring God. He lamented that the harsh reality was often the opposite, observing that while parents were capable of taking care of ten children, sometimes ten children failed to take care of their parents.

The bench noted that the parents have three sons — one in Mumbai, one in Navi Mumbai, and one in Kolhapur — and they must visit Mumbai regularly for medical treatment.

Without examining the detailed facts further, Justice Jain said that an interim arrangement was necessary. The court directed the parents to inform their Mumbai-based son before their hospital visits. It ordered the son and his wife to receive them when they arrive in the city, take them to his home, and accompany and assist them during treatment. He must also bear all related expenses.

After treatment, the son must ensure the parents return home safely. He must also make travel arrangements if they wish to visit their other sons.

The court clarified that if the son breaches the order or causes inconvenience to his parents, he will be held in contempt, and appropriate action will follow.