Patiala couple ordered to vacate parental property | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Nov 21, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Patiala couple ordered to vacate parental property

Taken aback by the growing drift of children becoming “insensate” towards their parents by ignoring moral values and traditions, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered a Patiala couple trying to throw aged parents out of the house to vacate the parental property.

chandigarh Updated: Feb 22, 2014 12:35 IST
Sanjeev Verma

Taken aback by the growing drift of children becoming “insensate” towards their parents by ignoring moral values and traditions, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered a Patiala couple trying to throw aged parents out of the house to vacate the parental property.


“Modernisation, technological advancement and social liability have changed our lifestyle and values. Sadly, our bent of mind and responsibility towards parents has degenerated,” remarked justice Paramjeet Singh.

Citing the proverbs “Maatru Devo Bhava” (revere your mother as God) and “Pitro Devo Bhava” (revere your father as God), the judge further observed: “On page 1,200 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Ram Das has written that ‘Kaahay Poot Jhagrat Ha-O Sang Baap / Jin Kay Janay Badeeray Tum Ha-O Tin Sio Jhagrat Paap//’ (O’ son, why do you argue with your father? It is a sin to argue with the one who fathered you and raised you).”

We as society have given up our ancient traditions in which our parents were most revered and respected, the court has expressed. “In the present case, son (Ashwinder Singh) and daughter-in-law (Sukhwinder Kaur), who happen to be defendants, have failed to spare a thought as to how fragile and feeble aged couple (Bhagwant Singh, 66, and Amarjit Kaur, 60) will be able to cope up with failing health, financial constraints, depression, loneliness, harassment, emotional stress, physical restraint, and love towards grandchildren. They were not properly guided even in filing the suit,” observed the court in dismay.

The son and daughter-in-law had approached the high court in regular second appeal challenging lower court decree orders to hand over vacant possession of disputed property and to make payment of `1,500 a month as the use and occupation charges from the date of filing the suit to the actual delivery of the possession to the parents.

Justice Paramjeet Singh, however, said: “The appeal should have been dismissed with heavy costs but keeping in view the relationship of the parties, I am restraining from imposing the same and hope that one day, wiser sense will prevail.”