Allowed

Anjanadevi v. Kamalamma

Kerala HC16 Sept 2021MA (EXE.)/2/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Family Court order that dismissed attachment of a deceased debtor's retirement benefits (DCRG). It held that decree debt can be enforced against such benefits regardless of legal heir disputes, directing the lower court to implead all claimants.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; directed Family Court to pass fresh orders and enforce decree debt from DCRG amount after impleading all claimants to legal heirship.

Anjanadevi Vs Kamalamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA,

¶6

1943

¶7

MA (EXE.) NO. 2 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 421/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

1 ANJANADEVI, AGED 44 YEARS D/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, VASANTHAM COTTAGE, FLAT NO. 4, AKATHETHARA P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 008.

¶11

2 AMRUTHA.M. NAIR, AGED 23 YEARS D/O. (LATE) C.S. MURALIDHARAN, VASANTHAM COTTAGE, FLAT NO. 4, AKATHETHARA P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 008.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SMT.B.ANUSREE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SMT.MEERA P.

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 KAMALAMMA,AGED 88 YEARS MOTHER OF J.D. LATE C.S. MURALIDHARAN, W/O.C.K. SREEDHARAN KORITHODE HOUSE, CHANGALIKUZHI, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 513.

¶16

-2-

¶17

Mat.A.No. 2 of 2020

¶18

2 THE COMMANDANT, SAP CAMP, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM 695 005.

¶19

3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, VELLAYAMBLAM, TRIVANDRUM 695 010.

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV SHRI.SREEDEV U

¶21

THIS MAT APPEAL (EXECUTION) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-3-

Mat.A.No. 2 of 2020

JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶26

The appellants are the decree holders in E.P.No.69/2017 in O.P No.421 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad.

¶27

The 1^st appellant Anjana Devi is the ex-wife and the

¶28

2^nd appellant Amrutha M. Nair is the daughter of the deceased

¶29

Muralidharan .

¶30

The marriage between Anjana Devi and

¶31

Muralidharan was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 29.01.2011.

¶32

As per the compromise for dissolution of marriage,

¶33

Muralidharan was agreed to pay Rs.15 lakhs along with interest towards alimony and maintenance.

¶34

-4-

¶35

Mat.A.No. 2 of 2020

¶36

The 1^st respondent is the mother of the deceased Muralidharan. The appellants moved Execution Petition No.69 of 2017 to execute the decree as against the deceased Muralidharan. The official respondents are also arrayed being the employer of the deceased Muralidharan.

¶37

In that execution proceedings, appellants filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of debt not in possession of the judgment debtor. The attachment is sought in respect of DCRG payable to the deceased.

¶38

The Family Court dismissed the petition holding that none of the legal heirs of the deceased had approached the authority demanding retirement benefits of the deceased and held that the retirement benefits cannot be processed without any claim from the legal heirs with necessary

¶39

-5-

¶40

Mat.A.No. 2 of 2020

¶41

documents to prove their claim.

¶42

There are dispute with regard to the legal heirship of the deceased Muralidharan. In a connected matter, namely OP(FC) No.132 of 2019, today, this Court dealt with an issue regarding the legal status claimed by one Sreevidhya, who claims that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Muralidharan. However, Sreevidhya is not made a party to the present case. It appears that Sreevidhya is having a child and she claims that the deceased Muralidharan is the father of the child.

¶43

There cannot be any doubt in regard to the service benefits payable to the deceased. The enforcement of decree is not against the legal heirs in their personal capacity but against the assets and estate of the deceased Muralidharan to the extent legal heirs are likely to inherit. Whether legal heirs

¶44

-6-

¶45

Mat.A.No. 2 of 2020

¶46

moved application for processing the retirement benefits is immaterial for consideration of enforcement of decree debt. The Court can very well direct garnishee to furnish the details of the entitlement of the deceased and can enforce the decree. However, all persons, who claim to be legal heirs should be made party to such proceedings. There should have notice on such proceedings. Irrespective of difference of opinion among the legal heirs, Court has to consider whether decree debt can be enforced by recovery from the DCRG payable to the deceased. If there is no legal bar against enforcing a decree debt against DCRG payable to the deceased, the Court can very well recover the decree debt from such amount payable. The enquiry of such proceedings is very limited. The Court can call upon the garnishee to furnish details of the amount payable to the deceased and thereafter, on being satisfied the decree debt can be enforced, direct garnishee to deposit the amount before

¶47

-7-

¶48

Mat.A.No. 2 of 2020

¶49

the Court. The procedure under Order XXI Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be followed in such matter. However, it is appropriate that all the parties claiming as legal heirs should also made party to such proceedings. We already made it clear that irrespective of difference of opinion, the persons claim to be legal heirs, the Court can very well enforce decree debt, if such amount can be recovered from the DCRG payable to the deceased. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the Family Court to pass fresh orders. We also direct the appellants to implead Sreevidhya and her daughter, who also have laid a claim as the legal heirs of the deceased in the party array. It is made clear that any amount left after satisfying the decree amount can be distributed only after the adjudication of the dispute among the parties claiming legal heirs. Further, the quantification of the amount due to deceased, if possible, is only through a proper

¶50

-8-

¶51

Mat.A.No. 2 of 2020

¶52

application, we give liberty to the 2^nd appellant to process the application subject to the decision regarding the apportionment among legal heirs by the Family Court as aforenoted.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶55

sd/-

¶56

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶57

das

Anjanadevi v. Kamalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjanadevi v. Kamalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreekala N.P Vs Ganeesh M.K.

Sudheer Vs Raseena Beegum

Manoj Vs Sheeba

Anjana Devi Vs State of Kerala

V.M Sindhu @ Sreemathy Thankachi, Vs K.Shaji

Shaiju S. Vs the Child Welfare Committee