Is a wealthy father obligated to provide for his 40-year-old insolvent son, who has two children, and whose insolvency is due to his wife's extravagance and his lack of savings, both in normal circumstances and if the father is suffering from a terminal illness, with this provision covering the son, his wife, and his children's food, clothing, drink, and private schooling?

A father is not obligated to spend on his adult child, whether healthy or sick. The child should rationalize their spending and avoid extravagance and wastefulness. However, if the child exerts effort in seeking livelihood but is unable to fulfill the obligatory expenses for their children and wife, then the affluent father is obliged to cover the shortfall in the necessary expenses, not the excess. Educational expenses for non-religious obligations are not incumbent upon the father.