UNION OF INDIA Vs. S M KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of a matrimonial suit for judicial separation. The facts are as follows : On 30th January 1951, Mrs. King brought a suit against her husband, S.M. King, who was an engine driver in the East Indian Railway, praying for a decree for judicial separation, alimony and custody of the children and order for their maintenance. After the progress of the suit up to a certain stage, a compromise was reached between the parties and it was filed in the Court on 17th July 1951. The relevant terms of the compromise were as follows :

(2.) It may he mentioned that along with the plaint a petition was presented by Mrs. King for an injunction to Mr. King to restrain him from withdrawing Rs. 18,450 out of his provident fund deposited with the Railway Administration. The same day a learned Judge of this Court ordered a temporary injunction to restrain Mr. King from withdrawing the sum of Rs. 18,450 from his provident fund and the Railway Administration from paying the same to him. When the compromise was filed this Court passed the following order :

(3.) When the order was communicated to the Railway Administration it applied to the Court for the recall of the order passed on 17th July 1951. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it was mentioned that according to the rules of the fund an employee of the Railway is entitled to 90% of the provident fund due to him on his proceeding oh leave preparatory to retirement and the balance of 10% is payable when he finally retires from the service. Mr. King took leave preparatory to retirement from 1st December 1960 and was thus entitled to get 90% of his provident fund from the Railway Administration. The total sum due to him under the provident fund account was Rs. 29,184. The Railway Administration mentioned that in compliance with the Court's order Rs. 18,450 out of the provident fund money had been withhold. It was contended that under Section 3, Provident Funds Act, 1925, provident fund money is not in any way capable of being assigned 'or charged and is not liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor, and that under Section 4 of the said Act the provident fund money is payable to the subscriber or the depositor and in the event of his death to his nominee. It was pointed out that in view of these statutory provisions, the Railway Administration was not in a position to send the money to the Grind lays Bank or deposit in the name of Mrs. King or of her minor children, because the statute casts a duty upon the Railway Administration to pay the money only to the depositor or the subscriber.