SYAMALA Vs. DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third respondent (Radhamani) filed O.P.No.408 of 2012 before the Family Court, Nedumangad for a declaration that she and her children are the sole legal heirs entitled to succeed to the assets of late Sasidharan, including his service benefits and family pension and for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Sasidharan. There is also a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent therein from withdrawing the DCRG and other service benefits.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 before this Court are not parties to the Original Petition filed before the Family Court. The petitioner is the respondent in the Original Petition. Along with the Original Petition, Radhamani filed I.A.No.331 of 2012 for temporary injunction. The Family Court granted an ad interim order of injunction. It would appear that the clerical errors in the interim injunction order were rectified. The petitioner is aggrieved by the ad interim order of injunction granted by the Family Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Original Petition before the Family Court is not maintainable, in view of Section 4 of the Pensions Act, 1871. The counsel also raised a contention that the court below has no jurisdiction to grant an interim order of injunction.