Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
REMYA K.C – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34923 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN, SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN, SHRI.JISSMON A KURIAKOSE, SHRI.SANAL C.S, SHRI.SIDHARTHAN M.T., SHRI.SOJAN K. VARGHESE, SHRI.SUDARSANAN U.
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
Dependency can continue post-marriage unless proved otherwise; burden of proof lies with the petitioner.
Headnote:Writ Petition challenges the cancellation of a Dependency Certificate, initially granted to the petitioner upon her mother's death. The Court finds merit in the appeal, stating that a child's dependency may persist post-marriage. However, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish ongoing dependency post-marriage, which was not evidenced. "The background of marriage does not nullify dependency unless proven otherwise." The decision dismisses the petition as the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the facts establish the basis of the petitioner's claim regarding dependency. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding marital dependency are analyzed. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court observations clarify the necessity of evidence for dependency claims post-marriage. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT The petitioner’s mother, Leela Vinodini, died on
07.10.2018 while working as Attendant in the Performance Audit Unit-1 in the office of the Panchayat Assistant Director, Palakkad. The petitioner thereupon submitted an application for Dependency Certificate, which was initially allowed as per Annexure 1 of Ext.P2. The Dependency Certificate was later cancelled as per Ext.P4 on the ground that the petitioner was married prior to the death of her mother, and she is dependent on her husband, who is employed in the Police department. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 before this Court, mainly contending that the order was passed without hearing her. Finding merit in the contention, Ext.P4 was set aside and the Tahsildar directed to consider the matter afresh. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has issued Ext.P5, rejecting the petitioner’s request for issuance of Dependency Certificate. Hence, this Writ Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner’s marriage prior to her mother’s death, cannot lead to an assumption that she is not a dependent. According to the counsel, the specific case urged before the Tahsildar was that even after marriage, petitioner used to live with her mother and was dependent on her for sustenance. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Ashkarali K. v. State of Kerala and Others [2009 KHC 4370] to contend that, irrespective of marriage, the son or daughter of the deceased employee may continue to be a dependent and marriage only changes the status of the son/daughter, but not the dependency.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that after Ext.P4 was set aside by this Court, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing and Ext.P5 order is passed after taking into consideration the contentions of the petitioner as well as the report of the Charge Officer, which revealed that the petitioner was residing with her husband, who is employed in the Police Department and was not dependent on her mother.
4. No doubt, as held by this Court in Ashkarali K. (supra), a son or a daughter may continue to be dependent on the parent irrespective of his/her marriage. In the case at hand, the petitioner was married much prior to the death of her mother Leela Vinodini. The Charge Officer has reported that the petitioner was residing with her husband, who is a Government Employee and was not dependent on her mother. As such, if there is any special circumstance which made the petitioner continue to be dependent on her mother, the burden is upon the petitioner to prove that fact. Here, it is pertinent to note that, apart from stating that she used to occasionally reside with her mother, no evidence is tendered by the petitioner to prove the factum of dependency.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
