Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached To Secure Maintenance Of Minor Daughter; Exemption U/S. 60(1)(g) CPC Not Applicable: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that retirement benefits can be attached to secure maintenance and educational expenses of a minor daughter, and that the statutory exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked by the employee to defeat such a claim.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the payment of maintenance is a statutory and constitutional obligation, and retirement benefits cannot be shielded from attachment when the claim is made by the minor daughter.
The Court was hearing a petition filed against the dismissal of an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the minor daughter sought attachment of the respondent’s retirement benefits to secure maintenance and educational expenses.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, while deciding the matter, observed: “the claim made by his own minor daughter seeking maintenance and educational expenses, both past and future, cannot be equated with a creditor who is attaching the retirement benefits of an employee for a debt due from the employee".
The Bench explained that the minor daughter "is undoubtedly a part of the family of the 1st respondent; and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the retirement benefits of R1 are not attachable towards her plea for maintenance, in view of the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC, is untenable.”
Advocate P. Rahul represented the petitioner, while Advocate B. Mohanlal represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, a minor daughter represented through her mother, instituted proceedings seeking maintenance and educational expenses, alleging that the respondent-father had failed to provide for her needs. She contended that the respondent was due to receive retirement benefits and that he intended to withdraw or divert the entire amount to defeat her claim.
An application for attachment before judgment was filed before the Family Court. The Family Court dismissed the plea, holding that retirement benefits could not be attached in view of the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, relying upon Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank and Another.
Challenging the order, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that a minor daughter seeking maintenance cannot be treated as a creditor, and therefore, the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) was not applicable.
Court’s Observation
The Kerala High Court, at the outset, recorded that “a person's obligation to maintain his minor children is a fundamental, legal and constitutional duty.” It held that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and that the right of a minor child to maintenance supersedes a claim of exemption.
The Bench held that Section 60(1)(g) protects retirement benefits to ensure sustenance after retirement, but such protection cannot be used “as a shield against fulfilling a statutory and moral obligation towards dependents.” Referring to Article 15(3) and Article 39 of the Constitution, the Court observed that maintenance laws operate as instruments to give life to constitutional directives.
The Bench referred to Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, noting that an order of maintenance is “a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children,” and falls within the purview of Article 15(3) and Article 39.
Addressing reliance on Radhey Shyam Gupta, the Court held that the facts were distinguishable. The Supreme Court in that case dealt with execution proceedings by a bank. The High Court noted that “it was a case wherein an execution proceeding initiated by the bank against the appellant therein,” and that retirement benefits were protected only to secure the livelihood of the retiree.
Distinguishing the present case, the Court held that the exemption cannot prevent a minor child from securing maintenance. The Court stated that a minor child cannot be equated with a creditor who is attaching the retirement benefits of an employee for a debt due from the employee and concluded that the argument that retirement benefits are not attachable under Section 60(1)(g) in such circumstances “is untenable.”
Conclusion
Allowing the petition, the Court set aside the Family Court’s order and directed reconsideration of the application for attachment before judgment. The Family Court was directed to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing both sides in the light of the findings recorded by the High Court.
Cause Title: RF v. S (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:84776)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates P. Rahul, Rajesh V. Prasad, Abhina L., Namitha Neethu Balachandran, Shyama S
Respondents: Advocates B. Mohanlal, P.S. Preetha, Motty Jiby Vasudevan, Abijith M., Avani Nair, Jayaprabha Arjun, Praveena T.