In a significant judgment, the
Kerala High Court has ruled that retirement benefits—including pensions and
gratuity—can be attached to secure maintenance for dependents, despite the
exemption provided under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
This ruling was delivered in the case of Rifa
Fathima vs. Salim & Others, OP(FC) No. 503 of 2025, dated 07 November 2025.[1][2][3]
The petitioner, a minor daughter
represented by her mother, approached the Family Court after her retired father
failed to pay ordered maintenance and education expenses for several years.
Fearing that her father would withdraw his retirement lump sum to avoid his
obligations, she sought the preemptive attachment of his benefits.[2][3]
The Family Court initially
declined the request, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Radhey Shyam
Gupta which upholds the immunity of retirement benefits under Section 60(1)(g)
CPC. However, upon appeal, Justice Snehalatha of the Kerala High Court clarified
that maintenance is a legal and moral duty, not a commercial debt. The
protection under Section 60(1)(g) cannot be invoked to defeat a dependent’s
right to maintenance.[3][1][2]
Judicial Reasoning and Constitutional
Principles
The High Court emphasized several
constitutional values, including Articles 15(3) and 39, which mandate the
protection of women and children. The judgment highlighted that maintenance
laws serve public policy objectives and support social justice. As the bench
observed:
“A person's obligation to
maintain his minor children is a fundamental, legal, and constitutional duty.
The right of a wife or minor child to maintenance supersedes the employee's
right to claim exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC.”[4][1][3]
The court thereby set aside the
earlier order, directing the Family Court to re-examine the plea for attachment
of retirement benefits and to prioritize the welfare of the dependent minor
child.[2]
Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure
Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that certain properties are exempt from
attachment and sale during the execution of a decree. Specifically, clause (g)
exempts "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 notified in the Official Gazette by the Central or State
Government, and political pensions" from being attached or sold to satisfy
a judgment or decree.[1]
This means that pension amounts
and gratuities granted after retirement generally cannot be seized by a court
to pay creditors, except in specific exceptions (such as maintenance decrees,
as clarified in recent case law). The purpose of this provision is to ensure
that retired individuals are not left destitute by execution proceedings and
can sustain themselves after retirement.[2][1]
Other clauses in Section 60
enumerate further exemptions, including wages of labourers, a right to future
maintenance, and allowances declared exempt by Indian law. Notably, courts have
recognized that these exemptions may not apply when the decree relates to
maintenance for dependents, in which case the public interest in ensuring basic
subsistence overrides these statutory protections.[2][1]
Summary Table:
|
Section/Clause |
What is Exempted |
Application |
|
60(1)(g) CPC |
Pension, gratuity, stipends |
Generally exempt from attachment[1] |
|
Legal Exception |
Maintenance decrees |
Can be attached by court[2] |
·
Kerala High Court: Retirement benefits can be attached for
maintenance despite Section 60(1)(g) CPC.[1][3][2]
·
Maintenance is a statutory and constitutional right, not
merely a debt.[3][1]
·
Public policy and constitutional protections for dependents
override statutory exemption of retirement benefits.[4][2]
·
Case citation: Rifa Fathima vs. Salim & Others,
OP(FC) No. 503 of 2025, High Court of Kerala, Date: 07 November 2025.[2]
.jpg)
.jpg)
(g) CPC: Kerala High Court){kind=link}
0 Comments