RAJAMMAL Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withhold the fourth respondent's retirement benefits till the legal heirs names will be entered in the service records and other connected pension papers of the fourth respondent and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to deduct the petitioner's share from the fourth respondent's retirement benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the fourth respondent was arranged by the elders from the kins of the both sides of the parties. After the marriage, the fourth respondent and the petitioner lead a happy matrimonial life and out of their wedlock one male child, namely, Chandrasekar, and two female child, namely, Jeyanthi and Sailaja was born and females are got married and they are living with their husband and now the petitioner is living with her aged parents and her son. The fourth respondent is employed as Field Assistant in Survey and Settlement Department, Tuticorin District more particularly under the control of the second respondent. To her shock and surprise, the fourth respondent had developed illegal intimacy with a lady and never turned the petitioner side and not takes care of their children also. Therefore, the petitioner made a police complaint on 29.02.2012, before the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kovilpatti. On receipt of the complaint, the police authority also called for enquiry. In the enquiry, the fourth respondent had promised to live along with the petitioner and also requested the police authorities to release him from criminal offence. But the fourth respondent changed his mind and deserted the petitioner and her children and left the matrimonial home on 15.03.2012. The police authorities advised the fourth respondent to mend his ways, but that was not accepted by the fourth respondent.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that in the abovesaid circumstances, she filed a maintenance case before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti in M.C.No.9 of 2012 against the fourth respondent and on 12.10.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, has passed an order directing the fourth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance. The copy of the judgment was communicated to the second respondent to deduct the maintenance amount from the fourth respondent's monthly salary. But the second respondent has not passed any order and make the petitioner to run pillar to post. The petitioner further stated that she is ready to live with the fourth respondent. But the fourth respondent wantonly evaded the petitioner and her children with an intention to develop his illegal intimacy. The petitioner also stated that the fourth respondent came to the petitioner's house and warned and told her that he is going to retire from service on Voluntary Retirement Scheme and going to marry the said lady and after that the petitioner would not get maintenance from the fourth respondent. Therefore, immediately, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondents 1 and 2 and specifically requested the authorities to enter her name and her children's name in the fourth respondent's Service Register as his legal heir. But to her shock and surprise the second respondent orally stated that there is no provision to exist for division of pension or other retirement benefits of service pensioner between pensioner and his wife/others as claimed by her. But as on date, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the fourth respondent and therefore, the second respondent ought to have entered the petitioner's name and her children's name in the Service Register of the fourth respondent. The petitioner also come forward by saying that when the competent Court, namely, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, has passed an order of maintenance in M.C.No.9 of 2012 dated 12.10.2012, it is the bounden the duty of the second respondent to deduct the said amount from the service benefits of the fourth respondent, since the second respondent is the employer of the fourth respondent. Without doing so, the second respondent arranged to pay the said service benefits to the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court with the relief as stated supra.