Kerala High Court Allows Attachment Of Father’s Retirement Benefits For Child Maintenance; Section 60(1)(g) CPC Exemption Inapplicable
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha held that a court can attach a father’s retirement benefits to secure maintenance and educational expenses for his minor daughter. The Bench clarified that the statutory exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which shields pension and gratuity from attachment in execution of a decree, does not apply when the claim arises from a dependent child’s right to maintenance. Distinguishing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2009), the Court observed that a minor daughter seeking support from her father cannot be treated as a creditor. It accordingly directed the Family Court, Chavara, to reconsider the plea for attachment in light of these findings
The matter concerns a petition filed by a minor daughter, represented by her mother, seeking maintenance and educational expenses from her father. After her parents’ divorce, she resided with her mother and pursued Plus Two studies. She stated that although a maintenance order of ₹2,000 per month had been issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, her father had not paid the amount, leading her to file for recovery. She asserted that she incurred ₹2,74,900 towards tuition and hostel fees at a Public School in Kozhikode and expected further expenses, including ₹3 lakhs for higher studies, ₹10,000 per month for hostel fees, and ₹20,000 per month towards future maintenance.
The petitioner submitted that the father, a former LD Clerk in the Panchayat Department who retired on 31.05.2025, was expected to receive approximately ₹55 lakhs as retirement benefits and arrears. She claimed that he was attempting to withdraw and divert these funds to defeat any possible decree. On this basis, she applied for attachment before judgment of his retiral benefits before the Family Court, Chavara.
The father disputed her claims, contending that prolonged illness had reduced his terminal benefits to a nominal sum. He stated that he had no property, had an obligation to maintain his aged parents, and that his last drawn salary was ₹16,000. He asserted his inability to pay the amounts claimed and argued that his retirement benefits had not yet been assessed. He sought dismissal of the plea, terming the claim of ₹39.94 lakhs unfounded.
The Family Court dismissed the plea for attachment before judgment, citing the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and relied on the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank. The petitioner challenged this finding before the High Court, leading to the present proceedings.
The Court recorded that the central issue was “whether the retirement benefits, such as pension, gratuity, receivable by the 1st respondent/father is liable to attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC in a claim for maintenance and educational expenses by his own minor daughter.” It observed that the petitioner was undeniably the minor daughter of the respondent and a Plus Two student. It noted her case that despite an order directing monthly maintenance of ₹2,000, the father “committed default in payment of even the said paltry amount.”
The Court stated that she had incurred substantial educational expenses and that her father, who retired as LD Clerk, was anticipated to receive significant retirement benefits. The Court recorded the petitioner’s assertion that the father “is trying to withdraw the said funds and to divert for his own needs.” It also recorded the father’s contention that he suffered illnesses, expected only nominal retirement benefits, and lacked means to pay the amounts claimed.
The Family Court had dismissed the plea relying on Radhey Shyam Gupta, holding that retiral benefits were exempt from attachment. The High Court examined this reasoning and observed that the precedent was distinguishable. It recorded that “the claim is made by his own minor daughter seeking maintenance and educational expenses, both past and future.” The Court stated that she could not be viewed as a creditor attempting to attach assets for a debt. It observed that a person’s duty to maintain minor children was “a fundamental, legal and constitutional duty.” The Court recorded that “the right of a wife or a minor child to maintenance supersedes the employee’s right to claim exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC.”
The Bench referred to Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution and noted that maintenance laws enable protection of children and women. It cited the Supreme Court’s observation in Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, that maintenance is “a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children.”
The Court stated that Section 60(1)(g) CPC aims to protect the employee and the family from destitution, and recorded that such protection cannot be used to avoid obligations towards dependents. The Court concluded that the Family Court’s reliance on Radhey Shyam Gupta was misplaced as that case concerned bank execution proceedings, while the present matter involved a statutory right of a minor child.
The Court recorded that “this O.P(FC) stands allowed.” It stated that “the impugned order in I.A.No.1/2025 in O.P.No.498/2025 of Family Court, Chavara is set aside. The Family Court to reconsider and dispose of I.A.No.1/2025 afresh, after hearing both sides, in the light of the findings made herein. Both sides shall appear before the Family Court, Chavara on 18.11.2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. P. Rahul, Shri. Rajesh V. Prasad, Smt. Abhina L., Smt. Namitha Neethu Balachandran, Smt. Shyama S.
For the Respondents: Shri. B. Mohanlal, Smt. P.S. Preetha, Shri. Motty Jiby Vasudevan, Shri. Abijith M., Smt. Avani Nair, Smt. Jayaprabha Arjun, Smt. Praveena T.
Case Title: Rifa Fathima v. Salim
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:84776
Case Number: OP (FC) No.503 of 2025
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha
