5.The Rule is meant for public purpose. Therefore, a literal interpretation cannot be adopted for understanding it. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the Rule does not specifically exclude a dependant parent. When we interpret the word 'include', it can adverse the illustration in nature. To put it differently, such definition does not exclude any other category. Therefore, when the definition “family” is mentioned to include the wife and children, it cannot be stated that it excludes dependant parent. There cannot be a different yardstick that has to be adopted for a married son and an unmarried son. The question is with respect to the dependency of the parent which has got no rationale with the status of the son. After all, as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a son is the duty bound to maitain the dependant parent. Though Section 3 of the aforesaid enactment has got an overriding effect, we have to read the said provision along with other provisions of different Rules and enactments by way of purposive interpretation. Even under the Hindu Law, there is an implicit obligation upon the son to maitain the dependant parent. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be sustained.
