In a significant decision that redefines the contours of family welfare jurisprudence, the Kerala High Court in Rifa Fathima v. Salim (O.P.(FC) No.503 of 2025, judgment dated 7 November 2025) held that a father’s retirement benefits can be attached to meet the maintenance and educational needs of his minor daughter, despite the general exemption provided under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
This ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, establishes that the statutory and moral obligation to maintain one’s children takes precedence over the statutory protection granted to retirement benefits. It marks a crucial judicial affirmation that welfare legislation and constitutional values must not be undermined by procedural shields when the beneficiary is a dependent child.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Rifa Fathima, a 17-year-old minor represented by her mother, approached the Family Court, Chavara, seeking maintenance and educational expenses from her father, the first respondent, Salim, who had recently retired from the Panchayat Department as a Lower Division Clerk.
Following the divorce of her parents, the minor daughter resided with her mother. Despite a previous maintenance order in M.C.(DV) No.104/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, directing the father to pay ₹2,000 per month, the father allegedly defaulted even on that modest amount. Consequently, the petitioner sought further relief for maintenance and education-related expenses.
In her plea, Rifa Fathima stated that she was a Plus Two student studying in a public school in Kozhikode and had already incurred ₹2,74,900 as tuition and hostel expenses. She further required approximately ₹3,00,000 for future course fees and ₹10,000 per month towards hostel accommodation for the next three years. Thus, she claimed ₹20,000 per month as maintenance, totalling around ₹39.94 lakhs towards past and future expenses.
Anticipating her father’s imminent retirement on 31 May 2025, she moved an application for attachment before judgment (I.A. No.1/2025) under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, seeking to secure his retirement and terminal benefits from being withdrawn or diverted, fearing he might deplete his assets to defeat any decree that could be passed in her favour.
Father’s Defence
In his objections, the respondent father vehemently opposed the petition. He contended that:
- He suffered from chronic illnesses and was on extended medical leave.
- His last drawn salary was only ₹16,000 per month.
- His retirement benefits were minimal and not yet finalised.
- He had to care for his aged parents and had no property or independent means.
- The claim of ₹39.94 lakhs was exaggerated and baseless.
Crucially, he argued that his pension and retirement benefits were exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(g) CPC, which shields such amounts from execution or pre-decree attachment proceedings.
Family Court’s Decision
The Family Court, Chavara, dismissed the petition for attachment before judgment. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank & Anr. [(2009) 1 SCC 376], the Family Court held that retiral benefits and pensionary entitlements were not liable to attachment due to the statutory protection provided under the CPC.
Feeling aggrieved, the minor daughter approached the Kerala High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Family Court’s interpretation and asserting her fundamental right to maintenance.
Issues Before the High Court
- Whether retirement benefits such as pension and gratuity are liable to attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC in a claim for maintenance and educational expenses filed by a minor daughter against her father?
This issue required the Court to balance two competing legal principles:
- The statutory exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC, shields retirement benefits from attachment.
- The fundamental and legal duty of a parent to provide maintenance to their child is recognised under personal laws and constitutional mandates.
Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning
1. Maintenance as a Fundamental and Constitutional Obligation
The Court began by recognising that a parent’s duty to maintain their children is not merely a moral or personal expectation—it is a legal and constitutional responsibility.
Citing Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution, Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that the State has a constitutional duty to protect the welfare of children and women, and maintenance laws are vital instruments for realising this constitutional vision.
The Court further referred to Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal (AIR 1978 SC 1807), where the Supreme Court held that maintenance provisions are “a measure of social justice” and “fall within the sweep of Article 15(3)” aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution among women and children.
Thus, when weighed against these constitutional obligations, the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC cannot operate in a manner that deprives a dependent child of her right to survival and education.
2. Interpretation of Section 60(1)(g) CPC
Section 60(1)(g) CPC exempts from attachment:
“Stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer… or payable out of any service family pension fund… and political pensions.”
The Bench clarified that the purpose of this provision is to ensure that employees who have retired from service continue to have access to subsistence funds for their own survival when their income ceases.
However, the Court emphasised that this protection cannot be misused as a legal shield to evade obligations towards dependents. In effect, the exemption was meant to protect livelihood, not to sanction neglect.
3. Distinguishing the Supreme Court’s Decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta
The Family Court had relied on Radhey Shyam Gupta to deny attachment. The High Court, however, held that this reliance was misplaced because the factual matrix was completely different.
In Radhey Shyam, the Supreme Court dealt with execution proceedings initiated by a bank against a retired employee for the recovery of a commercial debt. The Court held that retirement benefits, even if converted into fixed deposits, retained their essential character as protected retirement benefits and were therefore exempt from attachment.
In contrast, Rifa Fathima’s claim arose out of her fundamental right to maintenance as a dependent minor daughter, not from a commercial debt or contractual obligation. Therefore, she cannot be treated as a “creditor” in the conventional sense of the term.
4. Maintenance Rights Override Statutory Exemptions
The Bench categorically declared that the right of a wife or minor child to maintenance supersedes the employee’s right to claim exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC.
The Court reasoned that if retirement benefits are meant to ensure the welfare of the family, it would be antithetical to the very object of Section 60(1)(g) to exclude dependent family members from benefiting from it.
The legislative intent behind the exemption, therefore, is protective, not prohibitory—it ensures that retirement funds are available for sustenance, including the sustenance of dependents like the petitioner.
5. Welfare-Oriented Interpretation
In line with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on maintenance laws, including Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], the Bench reiterated that maintenance must be viewed through the lens of social justice and family welfare, not merely as a matter of procedural or property rights.
The Court emphasised that procedural law must serve substantive justice, particularly when the beneficiary is a vulnerable dependent such as a minor girl deprived of financial support from her father.
6. Reconsideration by the Family Court
Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the Division Bench directed the Family Court, Chavara, to reconsider the petition for attachment before judgment (I.A. No.1/2025) in light of its observations and to decide it afresh after hearing both parties.
The Court fixed 18 November 2025 as the date for both parties to appear before the Family Court for further proceedings.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
1. Expanding the Scope of Maintenance Enforcement
This ruling has broadened the interpretative scope of the law by holding that maintenance obligations can pierce through statutory exemptions traditionally applicable in execution proceedings. It ensures that children and dependents are not left destitute merely because their parents’ assets are shielded under procedural protections.
2. Reaffirmation of Child-Centric Justice
The Court reaffirmed that the best interests of the child remain paramount in all proceedings involving parental obligations. The judgment harmonises civil procedural law with the constitutional vision of social justice, ensuring that welfare objectives prevail over technical defences.
3. Balancing Competing Interests
While Section 60(1)(g) CPC seeks to protect retirees from post-retirement destitution, the Kerala High Court struck a careful balance by clarifying that this protection does not extend to situations where the retiree’s dependent children face deprivation due to non-payment of maintenance.
By distinguishing between creditors and dependents, the Court carved out a just and equitable exception that respects both statutory purpose and moral obligation.
4. Reinforcing Constitutional Morality
This judgment underscores the constitutional morality embedded in Articles 15(3) and 39, which urge the State—and by extension, the judiciary—to safeguard the welfare of women and children. The Court’s reasoning reaffirms that maintenance is not a charity but a right derived from human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
Kerala High Court’s ruling in Rifa Fathima v. Salim is a landmark affirmation of the principle that the right to maintenance overrides procedural immunities. By holding that retirement benefits can be attached to secure the maintenance of a dependent child, the Court has aligned family law with constitutional compassion and social realism.
This decision is not merely about interpreting Section 60(1)(g) CPC—it is about reaffirming that no statutory privilege can defeat the fundamental duty of a parent to maintain their child. It restores the spirit of justice by ensuring that procedural protections for retirees do not become instruments of neglect.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces that the welfare of the child is the supreme law, and in achieving this end, courts must read procedural exemptions in harmony with the Constitution’s vision of equality, dignity, and social justice.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams