An outer view of Bombay High Court in Mumbai.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized a son who sought to restrain his aged parents from using a Goregaon (East) transit camp residence, calling the case “a sorry state of affairs” and lamenting the erosion of moral values. The appeal challenged a 2018 order of the City Civil Court that had refused to grant the injunction sought by the son against his parents.
Justice Jitendra Jain, while disposing of the appeal filed by Ganpati Krushna Kalantre and another against Vilas Ganpati Kalantre and others, observed that instead of fulfilling his moral duty of caring for his ailing parents, the son had chosen to drag them to Court.
“This is 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. 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. 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 November 13 order said.
The Court went beyond legal reasoning to stress the importance of filial responsibility, quoting aphorisms that underscored the values of respect and care. “Respect the old when you are young. Help the weak when you are strong. Confess the fault when you are wrong. Because one day in life, you will be old, weak and wrong,” Justice Jain said.
He added that the most beautiful thing in the world is to see one’s parents smile and know that you are the reason behind that smile. “Care for your parents with love and respect, for you will only understand their full value when you see their empty chair,” the order noted.
Calling caring for parents “a sacred and moral duty” and “a labour of love that comes full circle,” the Judge lamented the harsh reality that “parents can take care of ten children, but sometimes ten children cannot take care of their parents.”
Without delving into the merits of the property dispute, the Court issued detailed interim directions to ensure the parents’ well-being. The defendants, who have three sons—one in Mumbai (the appellant), another in Airoli, and the third in Kolhapur, must be cared for during their frequent medical visits to Mumbai, Panvel, and Kolhapur.
Whenever the parents visit Mumbai for treatment at J.J. Hospital, they must inform the son in advance. On the day of arrival, the son or his wife must receive them and take them to his residence. He must accompany them to hospitals or clinics and bear all medical expenses. After treatment, he must ensure their safe return to Kolhapur or Panvel, where they also stay with their other sons. The Judge directed that the parents be treated with “utmost respect, love and care” and warned that any breach of these directions would invite contempt proceedings.
“The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, civil application does not survive and is disposed of,” Justice Jain concluded, adding that the directions were illustrative and the son must ensure no inconvenience or harm of any nature is caused to his parents.
Published – November 16, 2025 09:06 am IST
