Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13915 of 2006 ====================================================== Rita Devi wife of Sita Ram Modi, resident of Dharamshila Road, Near Laxmi Narayan Mandir, P.O. Kishanganj, P.S. Kishanganj in the district and town of Kishanganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Secondary School Education, Bihar, Patna. 2.Regional Dy. Director of Education, Purnia. 3.District Education Officer, Purnia. 4.District Provident Fund Officer, Purnia. 5.Accountant General, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6.Sita Ram Modi son of late Hiralal Modi, Assistant Teacher Tulsi Chand Karhahai Lal Girls High School, Narahat, Kasba, Purnia. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Singh, Mr. Radha Mohan Singh and Mr. Ramesh Kuamr Singh. For the Respondent no.6: Mr. Vikram Singh For the State : Mr.Sanjay Prakash Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 17-04-2013 There is no dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent no.6. From this wedlock, they have two daughters. There is no dispute that respondent no.6 and the petitioner have been living separately over two and a half decades. There is also no dispute that it is the petitioner who had taken care
Facts
of the two daughters including the marriage of first daughter and
Legal Reasoning
educating both of them. There is no dispute that respondent no.6 retired as an Assistant Teacher in the year 2006.There is also no dispute that respondent no.6 has received all retiral dues like Patna High Court CWJC No.13915 of 2006 (4) dt.17-04-2013 2 G.P.F, Group Insurance, Earned Leave etc., which he has not shared with other three family members. It is also not disputed that respondent no.6 is in receipt of pension but is not sharing a single pie with the other family members whom he is obliged to maintain. Respondent no.6 orally submits that in the year 1991 there was a compromise in which he agreed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 800/- per month. He alleges that he continued to pay the sum. Again orally he submits that for some time in the year 2006, as per direction of the Mahila Commission, he paid Rs. 3500/- per month; that is all to the family i.e. his wife and two grown up daughters. The defence of respondent no.6 is that now one daughter has been married and the other daughter is working as an Assistant Teacher and as such the family does not mean the part of the family and it is absurd argument on the face of it. Respondent no.6 vehemently opposes the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the matter. He states that the retiral benefits are his property and no one can claim thereon so is his pension. He further states that there is a matrimonial case pending before the Principal Family Judge, Purnea instituted by the petitioner and the two daughters against him in which he has appeared being Matrimonial Maintenance Suit No. 63 of 2006. He failed to explain as to why the case has been pending without any finality Patna High Court CWJC No.13915 of 2006 (4) dt.17-04-2013 3 for over six years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having appeared, he is not co-operating with the Court so that no decision could be taken. Having considered the matter, I would first like to point out that having married and having children, the respondent no.6 has a family. So long his family subsists, respondent no.6 cannot say that the family members have absolutely no right on his retiral dues or his pension. Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent no.6 is correct, it goes without saying that he has legal obligation and legal duty to maintain his family. The default in that duty give right to the Court to apportion his accumulation i.e. retiral dues and pensionary benefits to the family. Thus seen, in any way respondent no.6 is wrong in saying that the petitioner or for that matter his daughters have no right in respect of retiral dues and pension. It is not only the pious obligation but legal obligation and duty of a father to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter and on no pretence or pretext he can escape from that liability. Even if they are earning members on their own, respondent no.6 is not absolved of his duty in this regard. This is so far the case of the petitioner and her daughter in the financial affairs of the petitioner are concerned. Patna High Court CWJC No.13915 of 2006 (4) dt.17-04-2013 4 As noted above, there is a matrimonial proceeding pending as between the parties. At the first instance I would leave it to the Matrimonial Court to decide as to how the apportion has to be taken because it has full jurisdiction in the matter. This Court, as already indicated above, it is the property over which the Matrimonial Court can exercise jurisdiction. While doing so Matrimonial Court has to take humanitarian view of the matter and fix the maintenance that has to be paid by respondent no.6 to the petitioner. He would also have to fix the amount that respondent no.6 would have to pay for the marriage of the daughter as also to compensate the petitioner for the marriage expenses incurred for the marriage of her elder daughter. These are the considerations before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea. and the Family Court would be fully competent to pass the orders and direct District Provident Fund Officer to apportion the pension as between the petitioner and the respondent no.6 accordingly which the District Provident Fund Officer would be prompt to obey and implement. Now coming to the proceedings. As noted above, Matrimonial Maintenance Proceeding has been pending since 2006. Respondent no.6 does not deny that he has appeared in the proceeding . If he was indeed co-operating then seven years was Patna High Court CWJC No.13915 of 2006 (4) dt.17-04-2013 5 enough to conclude the proceeding. Allegedly, he has taken all steps to delay the proceeding so as to deny the petitioner any benefit from the said proceeding. I accordingly direct respondent no.6 as well as the petitioner to be personally physically present before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea on the next date and the date thereafter unless specifically exempted by the Court. If on any two consecutive dates respondent no.6 is not physically present, the Principal Judge, Family Court would be competent to issue warrant for his arrest and production of respondent no.6 in the proceedings. The Principal Judge, Family Court would then conclude the proceedings within three months fixing short dates in between and pass appropriate order for maintenance as well as marriage expenses, as indicated above. He would issue appropriate order/direction to the District Provident Fund Officer for complying the order in this regard as well apportioning the pension payable. Respondent no.6 undertakes before this Court to co-operate in the matter before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea, naturally the consequence thereof would be in case of non co-operation it would be a violation of undertaking given to this Court and would expose respondent no.6 to contempt proceeding to be initiated by this Court and face consequence. Patna High Court CWJC No.13915 of 2006 (4) dt.17-04-2013 6 Let it be noted that this order is being passed in presence of the counsels for the petitioner, for the respondent no.6 and the State. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ
Decision
petition is disposed of. singh/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)