SATABDI BANARJEE Vs. BANKING OMBUDSMAN, BBSR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. On 4/7/2022 he had moved the petition to submit, his client is a retired person. Marital discord happened and his client was driven out of the house. Prior to that his client had given instruction for his pension to be deposited in joint account held by himself and his wife. The wife (opposite party no.4) withdrew Rs.15.00 lakhs and in addition, three months' pension from the account, compelling his client to have written letter dtd. 6/2/2019 for freezing the account. Subsequently, being in financial distress, his client applied to the bank for operation of the account, to enable him to withdraw the pension. He submits, pension account cannot be attached. He submits further, sec. 11 in Pensions' Act, 1871 exempts pension from attachment. Hence, there be direction upon the bank to allow his client to withdraw 50% of his pension at present time. On query from Court he submits, pension stands deposited in the account since year 2019.

(2.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.3 (bank). He submits with reference to annexure-9 in the writ petition being order dtd. 10/3/2022 that the wife (opposite party no.4) had applied to the civil Court for restraining his client from freezing the account as sought by petitioner. The application stood rejected. Hence, his client acted as per extant guidelines in freezing the joint account on instruction of one account holder as the operation mode is 'either or survivor'.

(3.) Postal article dispatched to opposite party no.4 (wife) has been returned with endorsement, 'no such addressee-returned to sender'. On comparison with address given in the postal article and address of said opposite party appearing as petitioner in said order dtd. 10/3/2022 (annexure-9), it appears that address given in the postal article was incorrect.