SHANTHA KUMARI Vs. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E); DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION AND PRINCIPAL, ARIGNAR ANNA GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is most unfortunate that money properly due to a widow on the demise of her husband was withheld on the sole ground that her 80 year old father-in-law had filed a suit, in which he had made bald assertion that she had a customary divorce with her husband. Except that nothing was said in the plaint about the so called custom as to how ancient it was, how long it has been in practice and who had practised it. Nothing was said about the date on which the alleged divorce took place nor the names of persons who were present at the time of such divorce. After filing the suit the plaintiff did not seek any interim order. The prayer sought in the suit was that money should not be paid to the daughter-in-law, who had been impleaded as the 7th defendant. Among the other parties impleaded in the suit were the Principal of the College and the Life Insurance Corporation of India which were required to pay amounts to the widow of the deceased by virtue of the nomination which the husband had made, long prior to his death.

(2.) Despite the absence of any interim direction from the court restraining the Accountant General or the Principal of the College from disbursing the amounts payable to the legal heir of the deceased, the Principal of the College appears to have developed doubts as to be permissibility of disbursing the amounts which had been sent to him by the Accountant General for settling the provident fund claim. The Accountant General, on being informed that a suit had been filed by the father-in-law, has chosen to act solely on an opinion given by the Government Pleader to the Principal, copy of which the Principal had sent to the Accountant General, and instructed the Principal not to disburse any amount to anybody till the final adjudication, and also returned to the Principal the Family Pension papeRs.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was married to the deceased Ravisekaran. It is also an admitted fact that Ravisekaran had nominated his wife as the nominee for the purpose of receiving the provident fund, pension and other benefits. There could therefore be no manner of doubt that she was indeed the person who was lawfully entitled to receive those monies in the absence of any reliable document to show that she had divorced her husband even before his demise. Her status as legal heir was beyond question. She was also the nominee nominated by her husband during his life time to receive the Provident Fund, gratuity and pension. The mere allegation of a customary divorce made in the suit without any details being given cannot be taken as proof of divorce or as a presumption that such customary divorce had taken place.