Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed an octogenarian's plea against her daughter-in-law and granddaughter seeking maintenance from them as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The Court referred to the definitions of “children” and “relative” under sub-sections (a) and (g) of Section 2 of the Act and noted that daughter-in-law does not have the obligation to maintain the petitioner. It also rejected the petitioner's argument that the 2^nd respondent granddaughter, who is a student, falls under “relative” and therefore, dutibound to maintain her.

“It is not in dispute that the daughter-in-law is not covered by the provisions of Section 2(a). However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent would in any event fall under the definition of “children” as well as “relative”, and therefore the 2nd respondent is expected to maintain her. 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 unreasonable demands, especially when it is pointed out…. that the 2nd respondent is a student, who is undergoing studies after obtaining credit facilities,” the Court remarked.

The Court also made it clear that a mother-in-law cannot seek share in the family pension that is being paid to her daughter-in-law:

“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 family pension that is being paid to the…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 petitioner's son passed away while serving as a Senior Superintendent of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). She then instituted proceedings under the Act against her son's wife and daughter seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000.

The Maintenance Tribunal noted that the petitioner was paid more than 12 lakhs, i.e., one-third of the benefits payable to the deceased by KSEB and closed the petitioner's application. She appealed against the decision but the same was rejected. Aggrieved, she came before the High Court challenging the two decisions.

The petitioner argued that she was entitled to a share in the monthly pension received by her son's widow and that the party respondents have a duty to maintain her. The party respondents pointed out that the petitioner is herself drawing own service pension as well as that of her late husband.

The Court was of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and dismissed the plea.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 46758 of 2025

Case Title: K. Thankamma v. Moljimol K.S. @ Mol G Mol K.S. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 487

Counsel for the petitioner: Jinu Samyaktha Padmakumar, K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Sajen Thampan, Shyam Nair

Counsel for the respondents: Adhil P., Shabeer Ali Mohamed, V.B. Unniraj, Pooka Surendran – Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment