KOMAL KHOKHAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.S. Khokhar respondent No. 6 herein alongwith her two daughters Kanchan Khokhar and Shirin Khokhar through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 not to advance any amount to respondent No. 6 out of the accounts maintained with them.

(2.) It has inter alia been pleaded that Lt. Col. S.S. Khokhar respondent No. 6 herein retired on April 30, 1998. Total cash amount received by him on account of retiral benefits comes to more than Rs. 12 Lacs. Petitioners who are his wife and daughters have been neglected by respondent No. 6 and presently they are being maintained by the father of respondent No. 6. Lt. Cal. Khokhar had become alcoholic and on that count he was also boarded out from the army. He has been spending lavishly by staying in expensive hotels and in case he is not stopped from spending lavishly and particularly on liquor, he is likely to draw and spend the whole amount deposited by him with respondent 1 to 5. It has then been pleaded that by virtue of provision contained in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, respondent No. 6 is legally bound to maintain the petitioners. It has then been pleaded that this Court should constitute a Board so the respondent No. 6 is physically and mentally rehabilitated and starts leading a normal life.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Gurrattan Pal Singh, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and perused the record. We are of the view that relief as asked for in the present petition can well be maintained by filing a petition for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 on proof of the fact that the petitioners have been neglected by respondent No. 6. It is not for this Court to record evidence and return a finding of fact that petitioners have, in fact, been neglected by respondent No. 2. When the learned Counsel was suggested of a remedy before the appropriate Court, he canvassed before us that respondent No. 6 on account of drinking bouts has become insane and is likely to squander the entire money before any relief can possibly be granted by appropriate Court constituted for that purpose under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. As to whether respondent No. 6 is a lunatic as is being argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is again a question of fact and a finding on the same cannot be returned without recording evidence. We are of the view that petitioners have remedy under the Lunancy Act to declare respondent No. 6 as lunatic, if that be their assertion. It could not be disputed that if such a petition is filed interim relief to protect the property of a lunatic can always be obtained from the concerned Court. They may also resort to the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.