Lawyer, 41, Who Sued His Parents to Pay Him $500 a Week, Loses Appeal

An unemployed lawyer who has had his lavish lifestyle entirely funded by his wealthy parents for years has lost a court bid to force his mother and father to continue to pay him maintenance.

Faiz Siddiqui, 41, claimed his parents are violating his human rights after they stopped paying for his life in London after he went years without a job.

Siddiqui, who graduated from Oxford University, last worked in 2011 having previously practiced law at prestigious firms Burgess Salmon and Field Fisher Waterhouse and worked as a tax adviser at major accountancy firm EY, reported The Times.

While unemployed, he claimed he has become entirely dependent on handouts from his parents Rakshanda, 69, and Javed Siddiqui, 71, who live in Dubai.

These payments amounted to around £1,500 ($2,050) a month while the 41-year-old lives rent free in a £1 million apartment in central London.

His parents eventually cut him off after a falling out in recent years.

In what was the first of its kind in the U.K., Siddiqui sued his parents to make them continue to pay his maintenance while arguing he became dependent on the money.

The High Court originally threw out the case, resulting in Siddiqui taking the claim to the Court of Appeal.

His barrister, Hugh Southey QC, argued that Siddiqui is entitled to apply for maintenance under a British law called the 1989 Children's Act because he is a "vulnerable" adult due to health issues.

While also throwing out the case, Lord Justice Nicholas Underhill said that the law could only be used to force parents to provide support to adult children if the parents had separated.

"It does not call in question what was plainly Parliament's view, reflecting understood social norms, that (whatever the moral position might be) parents should be under no legal duty to support their adult children, however grave their need," the judge said in his ruling.

"He [Southey] offered no evidence in support of that submission; but even if there were some basis for it (which I doubt), I do not consider it remotely arguable that attitudes have changed in a way that would require us to hold that it was manifestly without reasonable foundation that adult children should be unable to claim financial support from their parents outside the parameters of that legislation."

Justin Warshaw QC, representing the parents, also suggested his arguments against his "long-suffering parents" were baseless.

"Parliament—and Mr Siddiqui's parents—do not consider that a child, particularly an adult child, should be able to litigate against their parents where there is a dispute between child and parent as to the level of support offered by the parents," Warshaw said, via the Daily Mail.

"Mr Siddiqui, wrongly, assumes that he is entitled to provision from his parents as of right. This is wrong.

"His skeleton argument is littered with emotive references to 'child' and 'children.'

"To be clear, this is a man in his 40s, seeking financial support from his elderly parents—69 and 71 years old, respectively.

"It goes without saying that the parents are devastated that they are being put through this ordeal by their son and that they are being put to such enormous expense, particularly when set against their historic and ongoing generosity towards him."

In 2018, Siddiqui also unsuccessfully tried to sue Oxford University for £1 million over claims was he prevented from achieving the top honors because of inadequate teachings, which cost him a lucrative career.

Southey has been contacted for comment regarding his client.