AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—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.
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.
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.
This writ petition was filed by the widow in the year 2001. It is a matter of regret that this court has not been able to give her relief for the last
two years and she had to wait for it till this day.
Counsel for the father-in-law submitted that his client is now over 80 years old and he is on his death bed. Evidently the suit that has been filed is
not being pursued. Counsel for the petitioner-widow submitted that she had to attend the court of Munsif on over 30 occasions as it was she who
was eager to see the final decision being rendered in the suit.
The Accountant General has improperly deprived the widow of the monies which she was entitled to receive as the legal heir of her deceased
husband.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we direct the Accountant General to ensure disbursement of all the monies payable to the
legal heirs of the deceased Ravisekaran, to his widow the petitioner herein, the couple being admittedly childless. The payment shall be made within
four weeks from today.
As the monies properly payable to the petitioner has been wrongly withheld for over two years, she shall also be entitled to interest thereon at
the rate of 6% per annum for two years preceding the date of this order. The Accountant General shall pay the interest and disburse the same
within four weeks.
This writ petition is allowed with costs. The costs in the sum of Rs. 5, 000/- shall be payable in equal portions of Rs. 2, 500/- each by the
father-in-law who has been the root cause of all the problems which the widow has to face in receiving the monies, and by the Accountant
General, whose wholly unreasonable attitude has resulted in the widow being denied the monies properly due to her.