Kerala High Court Rules Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached For Minor Child’s Maintenance

Can pension and gratuity be subject to attachment in any case? Generally, no, as these are considered a pensioner’s constitutional rights and cannot be attached, but there may be some exceptions. Kerala High Court, in a recent case where a minor daughter sought maintenance from her father, a retiree, held that the obligation to support his child supersedes the statutory protection available for retirement funds under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha held that the Section provides that stipends and gratuities of pensioners are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. “However, this protection cannot be used as a shield against fulfilling a statutory and moral obligation towards dependents.”

What Is Section 60(1)(G) Of The CPC?

Section 60 of the CPC, 1908, entails provisions regarding the properties that are liable or not to attachment and sale in execution of a decree.

According to the Section 60(1)(g), “stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government 2 [or of a local authority or of any other employer], or payable out of any service family pension fund 3 notified in the Official Gazette by 4 [the Central Government or the State Government] in this behalf, and political pensions” are not liable for attachment or sale.

In the said case, the high court ruled that pension and gratuity are not immune to attachment when it comes to ensuring maintenance for minor children.    

Case Background

A 17-year-old daughter (petitioner in this case) represented by her mother (Saleena A), filed the appeal in family court seeking attachment of the retirement benefits of her father (Salim). The father works as a lower division clerk (LDC) in the Panchayat Department. She alleged that after her parents’ divorce, he didn’t provide maintenance for her education. Despite the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, directing him to pay Rs 2,000 per month as maintenance, her father didn’t pay anything.

The daughter is currently a Plus Two student and has already incurred an expense of Rs 2,74,900 towards tuition and hostel fees. And for the next three years, she would require Rs 20,000 per month towards maintenance. For her past and future maintenance and education, she claimed a total of Rs 39,94,000.

The petitioner alleged that her father was to receive approximately Rs 55 lakh in retirement benefits and pay revision arrears. However, he is not willing to pay maintenance and “taking hasty steps to withdraw and divert his entire retirement benefits for his own needs”. Therefore, the petitioner sought attachment of the retirement benefits due to the father.  

Arguments

• The father’s counsel argued that he (father) retired on May 31, 2025, and his last drawn salary was a nominal Rs 16,000. He had the responsibility to maintain his aged parents and thus, cannot pay Rs 20,000 per month as requested. In addition to it, the counsel argued for not attaching the retirement benefits by relying upon Section 60(1)(g) of the CPC.

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the CPC does not apply to this case, because the minor daughter cannot be equated with a “creditor” for whom funds cannot be attached, but the claim is for maintenance, and requested attachment.

Court Observation

The court observed that while Section 60(1)(g) of the CPC is intended to protect employees and prevent their vagrancy and destitution after retirement, the attachment exemption cannot be used to evade statutory and moral obligations toward dependents.

The court noted, “A person's obligation to maintain his minor children is a fundamental, legal, and constitutional duty. The object of payment of maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. 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. Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India direct the state to ensure the protection and welfare of children and women.”

The court also clarified the distinction between this case and a previous case, which the family court relied upon for dismissing the attachment request in this case. The court said, “She (daughter) is undoubtedly the part of family of the 1st respondent (father); and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the retirement benefits of R1 (father) is not attachable towards her plea for maintenance, in view of the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) CPC, is untenable.”

Court Judgement

The Court allowed the petition. It set aside the family court’s judgment passed on August 16, 2025, in which the family court had dismissed the petitioner’s attachment application. The high court directed the family court to hear the matter afresh, keeping in consideration that the father’s retirement benefits are liable for attachment to fulfill obligations towards his minor daughter.