HC's disabled people of 86, 77 woman ... HC's important decision on the responsibility of Bhats on the boy

Last updated: August 25, 2025, 21:10 IST Haryana News Today: Punjab and Haryana High Court retained an order to give £ 15000 to 77-year-old woman to the 86-year-old retired army officer. The court rejected the man’s petition. To postpone the responsibility on the boy … Read more, the court made a strong verdict. (Symbolic picture) Chandigarh. The man is responsible for the maintenance of the woman, no matter what he is. The Punjab High Court and Haryana made it clear in an important order. The court said that if the man was present economic means, he was bound by both law and morality to take care of his wife and carry his expenses throughout his life. The judge of the Supreme Court Shalini Singh Nagpal heard the petition of 86 -year -old retired army officer. The family court, Narnaul, ordered in April this year that the man would give his 77-year-old wife an £ 15,000 interview each month as a expenses for expenses and £ 11,000. The man challenged this order. Don’t boys become responsible? It is argued on behalf of her husband that she is paralyzed and helpless, and cares for her with the help of boys. The boy supports the mother and is not to the father. At the same time, he said that the woman should meet the maintenance boys. To this, the court made it clear that the woman’s rights cannot be weighed with the responsibility of boys. As long as the man has income, the same is the support of the woman. The £ 42,750 pension caller also argued that the family court incorrectly assessed. While determining the amount of £ 15,000, the court considered its pension £ 42,750 and 2.5 hectares of land in the village side as the basis. He said that the land owned in his sons and that he could not find itself. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the pension was coming directly to him and that the country was legally its own. The court did not agree to the sons of the woman and the court did not say that the woman’s life should be protected from basic needs such as food, clothing, treatment and shelter. This argument is not valid for the woman to live by relying on the boys. It is the duty of the man not to leave his wife to stumble off course. Eventually, the court said that the amount of interim maintenance is not excessive or unfair. This is definitely according to the social status of both and the income of the man. On this basis, the Supreme Court rejected the man’s petition and confirmed the order of the family court. On the author Sandeep Gupta has been active in journalism for more than 14 years. In 2010, after starting his career with the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper, he worked as a reporter in the new world, Dainik Jagran and Punjab Kesari. During this time I am active in crime and I read in journalism for over 14 years. In 2010, after starting his career with the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper, he worked as a reporter in the new world, Dainik Jagran and Punjab Kesari. During this time, crime and … Read more first published: 25 August 2025, 21:06 IST Homeharyana 86 Handicap