1. “The measure of filial devotion lies not in the wealth inherited, but in the justice and compassion we show to those who raised us.”

                  This review petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8781 of 2024, seeking for a review of the judgment dated 08.08.2024, directing the petitioner to remit a sum of ₹20,000/- per month in the account of the fourth respondent towards the expenses incurred for the medical treatment of the petitioner's mother. The writ petition was filed by the review petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the first respondent – Presiding Officer (Maintenance Tribunal) directing the petitioner and the fourth respondent to look after their mother Vasumathi for three months each and to utilise the necessary funds for medicine and other requirements accordingly. It was also directed in Ext.P9 that the petitioner shall protect and take care of Vasumathi from 05.01.2024 onwards, she having been under the protection and care of the fourth respondent until then, and also the third respondent, Station House Officer, Nedumangad, was directed to ensure and implement the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the review petitioner approached this Court with the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by Judgment dated 08.08.2024, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of ₹20,000/- per month in the account of the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1402 of 2024 before this Court and the same was dismissed as per judgment dated 12.12.2024. Thereafter, a Contempt Case was filed by the fourth respondent for non-compliance of the direction in the judgment. Meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No. 43419/2025, and the same was disposed of as follows:

                  “ 2. Having considered the matter, we permit learned counsel for the petitioner to file a review before the concerned Court bringing all issues of law and facts to the notice of the concerned Court, including the fact of consent, which has been recorded in the order. If the same is done within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered by the concerned Court on merits, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

                  3. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

                  4. Needless to say that the concerned Court shall take into account the change of circumstances. It shall be open to any party aggrieved by the order passed in the review to move before this Court.

                  5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

2. Thus the above Review Petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that there was error apparent on the face of the judgment. The impugned judgment was based on a mistake and a patent error of fact that the petitioner had consented to a fixed monthly payment of ₹20,000/-. The petitioner had never consented to the fixation of a monthly amount of ₹20,000/-. The said amount was determined solely on the basis of the submission made by the fourth respondent, without any verification of the petitioner’s financial capacity or consideration of the actual medical bills. The petitioner was willing to contribute to the expenses incurred for her mother’s medical treatment and other needs. It was stated in the review petition that the mother passed away on 07.08.2025. No other grounds were raised in the review petition.

4. The fourth respondent had filed a detailed counter affidavit to the review petition contending that the Supreme Court had granted liberty to file a review petition within a period of one month from 08.09.2025. The present review petition, though filed on 07.10.2025, was registered only on 10.10.2025, i.e., two days after the time granted by the apex Court. She was completely ignorant as to the medical condition of her mother and willfully neglected to take care of her. The mother was diagnosed with cancer in the year 2022 and though the details of the illness were informed to the petitioner, she did not even care to visit the mother. The fourth respondent was taking care of the mother for the past 20 years. Though in 2022, the fourth respondent met with an accident sustaining fracture to her left elbow and shoulder, her daughter was taking care of the mother and even then, the petitioner who was residing only 1 km away from the mother’s house was reluctant to take care of the mother. Even on 23.08.2022, when the husband of the fourth respondent was seriously ill due to a stroke, the petitioner did not offer any help or assistance in taking care of her mother. Despite the difficult circumstances faced by the fourth respondent during the hospitalization of both her husband and mother, the petitioner did not find it necessary to take any responsibility for her mother’s care. As per Ext.P9 order, the petitioner was bound to take care of the mother from 05.01.2024. However, she neglected to abide by the order.

5. It is also contended that the total expenses for taking care of the mother amounted to approximately ₹60,000/- per month. It was after consultation with the petitioner that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was willing to contribute ₹20,000/- per month, and on that basis, the W.P.(C) No.8791 of 2014 on 08.08.2025 was disposed of. The afore impugned judgment was disposed of solely on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner that she is not in a position to take care of her mother to the hospital and she is willing to bear the expenses incurred for medical treatment and other expenses. In view of this, this Court had directed to remit an amount of ₹20,000/- to the account of the fourth respondent. The report submitted by the VRC lawyer, KelSA, as directed by this Court in W.A. No. 1402/2024, also establishes the fact that more than ₹50,000/- per month was incurred towards the expenses of the mother.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

7. Paragraph 3 onwards of the judgment of this court dated 08.08.2024 reads as follows:

                  “3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mother cannot remain in the custody of the petitioner since the petitioner lives 20 kilometers away from the mother and the petitioner is not in a position to take her mother to the hospital. However, she is willing to contribute the expenses incurred for medical treatment and other expenses of her mother.

                  4. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that around Rs.40,000/- per month is incurred for medical treatment of the mother.

                  Considering the said submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to remit Rs.20,000/- per month in the account of the 4th respondent (V.Sreekumari, A/C No.6449707856, IFSC Code IDIB000N143, Indian Bank, Nedumangad Branch). The petitioner should remit Rs.20,000/- on or before 07.09.2024 and thereafter, on or before 7th day of each succeeding month till the mother is alive.”

8. It may be true that it is on the basis of the submission of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  that,  around ₹40,000/- per month is incurred for medical treatment of their mother, the amount was fixed as ₹20,000/-

9. On a perusal of the impugned judgment also, it is seen that this Court has not observed any finding that the petitioner had consented to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- per month. Since the learned counsel for the fourth respondent had submitted that an amount of approximately ₹40,000/- per month was being incurred towards the medical treatment of the mother, and in view of the willingness expressed by the petitioner to contribute towards the medical and other expenses of her mother, this Court, in a reasoned manner, directed the petitioner to remit ₹20,000/- per month towards the said expenses.

10. This Court during the contempt proceedings, had earlier directed the petitioner to remit the aforesaid amount on or before 07.09.2024 and thereafter on or before the 7th day of each succeeding month, till the mother is alive. Though the tribunal had passed an order directing the petitioner as well to take care of the mother, admittedly she has not come forward to take care of her mother, who was suffering from Stage-IV cancer and was undergoing treatment.

11. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, this Court had directed Adv.Parvathi Menon.A, Project Co-ordinator, VRC, KeLSA, to conduct an enquiry, and a detailed interim report was accordingly filed with the assistance of Adv. K.L.Sree and Adv. Susha.R., members of the VRC panel stating that the VRC lawyer had visited the mother and it was found that a home nurse had been appointed to take care of her, for which an amount of ₹18,000/- was being paid. It was also reported that, due to insufficient space in the house to accommodate and give adequate care for the mother, another apartment had been taken on rent for ₹8,000/- per month, which by itself came to ₹26,000/-. Moreover, the expenses incurred for the treatment of cancer are substantially high. It was also reported by the lawyer of VRC as follows:

                  “Initially, Chandrika, the petitioner, denied all allegations made by the 4th respondent. She claimed that the properties given to her by her father are situated on a rock and, therefore, are of no use. She contended that the properties gifted to her by her father are located on a rocky land and are, therefore, of little practical use. Chandrika stated that she cared for her father for 16 days while he was hospitalized just before his death. Subsequently, she claimed that she did not receive any share from her mother. In the next breath, she mentioned that she sold the property and deposited the proceeds in a bank. With the interest from this amount, she stated that she has been supporting her mother. And also said that the whole amount she got from the property was spent for her mother. So she is not responsible to look after her mother. She asserted that she last saw her mother eight years ago, refuting the claim that she had not seen her for 24 years.”

12. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner was willing to contribute towards the expenses incurred for her mother’s medical treatment and other needs. The duty to take care of the parents does not depend on the size of the inheritance. It is the bounden duty of children, whether male or female, to take care of their parents during their old age. While the children were infants till attaining an age capable of taking care of themselves, the parents took care of the children, ignoring all their personal needs or happiness. In their old age, therefore, it becomes an unavoidable obligation for the children to look after and support their parents. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not take care of the mother nor visited her for the past 8 years till her death on 07.08.2025.

13. Since the mother is no more, the petitioner needs to pay only the amount ordered by this court, till 07.08.2025 ie; the date of death of the mother, less the amount already paid to the fourth respondent. The interim report of Adv.Parvathi Menon.A, Project Co-ordinator, Victim Rights Centre, KeLSA, in Writ Appeal No.1402 of 2024, also establishes the fact that the amount involved towards treatment expenses and the expenses for taking care of the mother was much more than ₹40,000/-, which was met by the fourth respondent. Thus, the amount fixed by this court as per Judgment dated 08.08.2024 was just and reasonable.

                  I do not find any error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.