On claims against children, over children.

SS is the only son of Mr and Mrs SPS. He has been sued by his parents.

The complaint? That he has not produced a grandchild for his parents to spend time with, despite SS being married for 6 years. Mr and Mrs SPS deem this "mental cruelty".

Mr and Mrs SPS seek compensation of ₹50 million: they say they have spent ₹25 million on SS since his birth, and are seeking an additional ₹25 million as damages.

---

I make 3 observations.

First, the law is often a blunt tool. I make no comment on the legal merits of the claim, as that is a matter of Indian law¹ that is before the Indian Courts.² However, regardless of whether Mr and Mrs SPS succeed or fail in their claim, I cannot imagine that them bringing this claim has improved their relationship with SS.

My suggested takeaway: if you are faced with a problem, be wary of a lawyer who encourages you to sue immediately, instead of treating a lawsuit as the final resort. You may find yourself in a situation where even if you win the battle, you lose the war.

Second, if you intend to seek recourse for a wrong, it is not enough that you feel aggrieved. You must also be able to identify a legal cause of action.

For example, perhaps Mr and Mrs SPS have a claim in contract - maybe SS had expressly agreed that he would produce a grandchild, in return for them paying for his wedding and honeymoon?³ Or perhaps they have a restitutionary claim - SS was arguably enriched at the expense of his parents, and the unjust factor might be their mistaken belief that if they arranged for him to get married, he would produce a grandchild.⁴ In this case, Mr and Mrs SPS appear to have brought a claim for "mental harassment".⁵

My suggested takeaway: before you decide to sue, your lawyer should have explained to you (a) the cause of action that you should proceed on; (b) the elements of this cause of action and how they have been met; and (c) what are the likely defences that the opposing party can raise and what is your response to them. I suggest that any lawyer worth their salt would be able to explain these matters to you in a manner that you understand.

Third, Mr and Mrs SPS's lawyer says that "[f]rom the parents' point of view, their demand is justified. Their expectations are not wrong."⁶

I have no doubt that Mr and Mrs SPS feel strongly about this case. As parents, they would naturally have expectations of their son.⁷

But I suggest that the focus on their perspective misses the point. What matters is the Court's point of view.

My suggested takeaway: when faced with a dispute, find a lawyer who will not just parrot your point of view. Find a lawyer who is able to see things from the Court's point of view, and shape the argument that will best meet the Court's considerations and concerns. Your lawyer should not be a mere mouthpiece.