Justice Harisankar V. Menon, Kerala High Court
Daughter-In-Law Not ‘Child’ Under Senior Citizens Act; Maintenance Claim Against Student Granddaughter Unreasonable: Kerala High Court
|The Court also held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, does not entitle a senior citizen to claim a share in the family pension paid to her deceased son’s widow.
The Kerala High Court has held that a daughter-in-law is not covered by the definition of “children” under Section 2(a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and found an 83-year-old grandmother’s maintenance demand against her 22-year-old student granddaughter unreasonable.
The Court dismissed the woman’s petition seeking ₹15,000 as monthly maintenance from her deceased son’s widow and daughter.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging orders by the Maintenance Tribunal and the District Collector acting as the Appellate Tribunal, which had declined the petitioner’s claim for maintenance.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed: “The afore issue requires to be answered, with reference to the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, the provisions of the afore Act are applicable only as regards ‘children’ as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act read with the provisions of Section 2(g) defining the term ‘relative’. It is not in dispute that the daughter-in-law is not covered by the provisions of Section 2(a). However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent would in any event fall under the definition of ‘children’ as well as ‘relative’, and therefore the 2nd respondent is expected to maintain her. I am at loss to understand the basis of such a contention since admittedly the 2nd respondent is only a student. The petitioner, the grandmother of the 2nd respondent is not expected to raise such unreasonable demands, especially when it is pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents that the 2nd respondent is a student, who is undergoing studies after obtaining credit facilities from the Union Bank of India.”
Advocate K. Radhakrishnan Nair appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Adhil P. appeared for the private respondents, while Government Pleader Pooja Surendran represented the State authorities.
Background
The petitioner’s son had served as a Senior Superintendent with the Kerala State Electricity Board. Following his death, the petitioner instituted proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, against his widow and daughter.
The Maintenance Tribunal closed the application after noting that the petitioner had already received one-third of her deceased son’s service benefits, excluding the provident fund component. The District Collector, acting as the Appellate Tribunal, subsequently affirmed that order.
Before the High Court, the petitioner sought ₹15,000 as monthly maintenance and contended that she was also entitled to a share in the family pension received by her son’s widow.
The private respondents submitted that the Kerala State Electricity Board had already paid more than ₹12 lakh to the petitioner. They further pointed out that she received a service pension from her former employment with the Fisheries Department and another pension arising from her late husband’s service. The granddaughter was stated to be pursuing her studies with the assistance of an education loan.
Court’s Observations
The Court recorded that the Kerala State Electricity Board had directly paid ₹12,28,646 to the petitioner from her deceased son’s service benefits and that she did not dispute receiving the amount.
The Court noted: “After his death, the service benefits were proposed to be disbursed to the respondents herein. However, at that point of time, the petitioner, in her capacity as the mother of the deceased, raised a claim, and on that basis, the employer KSEB has paid an amount of Rs.12,28,646/- directly to the petitioner herein. This payment is also not disputed by the petitioner.”
The Court also took account of the undisputed position that the petitioner was herself a service pensioner. Against this background, it declined to compel a student granddaughter, who was financing her education through bank credit, to pay maintenance.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that she was entitled to receive part of the family pension being paid to her deceased son’s widow. It held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, did not contemplate such a claim.
The Court held: “In my opinion, under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner- the senior citizen is not at all entitled to seek for disbursement of the family pension that is being paid to the 2nd respondent -wife of the deceased. This is not visualized with reference to the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner has such a case, her remedy lies elsewhere.”
The Court further observed: “On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs, as sought for in this writ petition. This is especially so since, it is pointed out by the party respondents that the petitioner herself is a service pensioner, which fact is also not disputed by the petitioner.”
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the order of the District Collector affirming the rejection of the maintenance claim.
Cause Title: K. Thankamma v. Moljimol K.S. @ Mol G Mol K.S. and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:64761)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Sajen Thampan, Shyam Nair and Jinu Samyuktha Padmakumar
Respondents: Advocates Adhil P., Shabeer Ali Mohamed and V.B. Unniraj; Government Pleader Pooja Surendran