Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that a granddaughter pursuing her studies with the help of a student loan cannot be expected to maintain her grandmother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Justice Harisankar V Menon made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by an octogenarian seeking maintenance from her daughter-in-law and granddaughter under the Act.

The petitioner’s son, who had served as a senior superintendent with the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), had died while in service. She subsequently initiated proceedings under the Act against his wife and daughter, seeking monthly maintenance of ₹15,000.

The Maintenance Tribunal closed the petition after noting that the petitioner had received more than ₹12 lakh, amounting to one-third of the benefits payable by the KSEB following her son’s death. Her appeal against the decision was also rejected, prompting her to approach the High Court.

Before the High Court, the woman argued that she was entitled to a share of the monthly family pension received by her daughter-in-law and that both the daughter-in-law and granddaughter were legally bound to maintain her.

The respondents, however, pointed out that the petitioner was herself receiving a service pension as well as a pension payable on account of her late husband.

The High Court examined the definitions of “children” and “relative” under Section 2 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

The court noted that the daughter-in-law was not covered by the definition of “children” under the Act. It also rejected the petitioner’s contention that her granddaughter fell within the definition of a “relative” and was therefore obliged 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 court observed.

The court said the petitioner could not make such demands, particularly when the granddaughter was pursuing her studies after obtaining credit facilities.

“The petitioner, the grandmother of the 2nd respondent is not expected to raise such unreasonable demands,” Justice Menon observed.

The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim to a share of the family pension being received by her daughter-in-law, who was the wife of her deceased son.

“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,” the court said.

It added that such a claim was not contemplated under the Act and that the petitioner would have to pursue any such claim through another legal remedy.

The High Court ultimately found no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the Maintenance Tribunal and the appellate authority and dismissed the petition.

(With LiveLaw inputs.)