Back
Granddaughter Studying on Loan Not Obliged to Maintain Pension-Drawing Grandmother:
In a significant interpretation of the , the has ruled that a granddaughter who is a full-time student financing her studies through a loan cannot be compelled to maintain her grandmother, especially when the grandmother herself draws a and receives pension from her late husband’s employment.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed a filed by 83-year-old K. Thankamma, who sought monthly of ₹15,000 from her daughter-in-law and granddaughter after the death of her son, T. Raj Kumar, a former Senior Superintendent at the .
A Mother’s Plea for
Thankamma’s son died while in service, leaving behind his wife, Moljimol K.S., and their daughter, Krishnapriya Rajkumar. The elderly mother approached the under the Senior Citizens Act, claiming that the family was duty-bound to support her. However, the Tribunal noted that KSEB had already paid Thankamma ₹12,28,646 —one-third of the —and closed the application. Her appeal to the District Collector was also rejected, prompting her to move the High Court.
Defining ‘Children’ Under the Act
The Court examined the . Under , “children” include sons, daughters, and grandchildren, but not a daughter-in-law . Accordingly, the Court held that the first respondent, Moljimol, as the widow of Thankamma’s son, had no under this law to maintain her mother-in-law.
As for the granddaughter, the petitioner argued that Krishnapriya, being a “relative” under , was obligated. Justice Menon rejected this contention outright, observing:
“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 , especially when it is pointed out … that the 2nd respondent is a student, who is undergoing studies after obtaining credit facilities from the .”
No Claim to Under This Law
Thankamma also sought a share of the being paid to her daughter-in-law. The Court clarified that the Act does not provide for such a claim:
“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 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 noted that the petitioner is herself a service pensioner from the and also receives pension from her late husband’s service, making her financially independent.
Verdict: Petition Dismissed
Finding no error in the orders of the or the , the High Court dismissed the . The judgment reinforces that the Senior Citizens Act is designed to assist those in , not to impose burdens on other family members who are themselves dependent or have limited resources.
The decision serves as a clear that the Act’s obligations do not extend to a daughter-in-law, nor to a student-granddaughter who is already shouldering , particularly when the claimant has .
[Case Title: ]
