RB News World Latest News
Related Articles
Expressing concern over the recent erosion of family, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that people in India believe in the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, but fail to stay united even with close relatives. The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti said that the concept of family is ending and the system of one person-one family is being formed in the country.
The bench said, in India we believe in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, we believe that the whole earth is one family. However, he further said, let alone creating a family for the world, today we are not able to maintain unity even in our family. The basic concept of family is ending and we are standing on the verge of one person one family.
What did the court say?
The Supreme Court made this comment in a woman’s case about the gradual end of the concept of family in India. The woman had filed a petition in the court, in which she had requested to evict her elder son from the house.
In which case did the court comment
It was brought on record that Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi had five children including three sons and two daughters. Kallu Mal later passed away. The parents did not have good relations with their sons and in August 2014, Kallu Mal filed a complaint with the local SDM, in which he accused his elder son of mental and physical torture.
In the year 2017, the parents initiated maintenance proceedings against their sons, which was registered as a criminal case in a family court in Sultanpur.
The family court ordered the parents to pay Rs 4,000 per month, which was to be paid equally by both the sons by the seventh of the month. Kallu Mal alleged that his house was a self-acquired property, which also included shops in the lower portion. He ran his business in one of these shops from 1971 to 2010. The father alleged that his eldest son did not take care of his daily and medical needs.
What was the court’s decision
The Supreme Court said in its decision that it cannot be said that the father is the sole owner of the property, because the son has a right or share in it. The court said that there was no need for a harsh step like ordering the son to be evicted from a part of the house, rather the purpose could have been achieved by ordering maintenance under the Senior Citizens Act.
