That which has been a sacrosanct duty of a Child had become a bone of contention in Court.
One can visualise the agony of the parents in going to go to court on this issue.
Children must remember that the seed also becomes a Tree later.
Hinduism says that for every sin there is atonement.
For neglecting parents, none.
It adds ‘For a child Mother is God even if she were to be a Prostitute,Father even a deserter”
The judgement by The Supreme Court that the children who have neglected parents in old age have no right to property is a land mark ..
Refers to.
”
Genuineness of a will cannot be disputed merely because the testator declined share in the family property to “ungrateful children”, and had bequeathed it solely to one of the sons who looked after the aged parents till their death, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya set aside a judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which disbelieved the veracity of a will executed by Harishankar to one of his son Mahesh Kumar to the exclusion of two other sons – Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar.
“Therefore, there was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Shri Harishankar to give his share in the joint family property to the appellant. Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children from his/her share in the property,” Justice Singhvi writing the judgement said.
The bench said that in the present case the evidence clearly proved that Harishankar had willed the property to Mahesh Kumar instead of the other two sons as the former along with his wife and kids had taken care of the aged parents till their death.
Hence it felt that the high court had wrongly assumed that the Will was shrouded in suspicion owing to the exclusion of property to the other children by Harishankar which was executed on February 10, 1992.
“The evidence produced by the parties unmistakably show that respondent No 2 had separated from the family in 1965 after taking his share and respondent No 1 also got his share in the 2nd partition which took place in 1985. Neither of them bothered to look after the parents in their old age.
“The attitude of respondent Nos 1 and 2 left Shri Harishankar and his wife with no choice but to live with the appellant, who along with his wife and children took care of the old parents and looked after them during their illness,” the apex court said.
