MS PRACHI SINHA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, SUNIL GAUR
Provisions considered
- Air Force Act, 1950 s. 91
Judgment
. .... Respondents Through: Mr.Ankur Chibbar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR o/o ORDER 22.07.2011 CM No. 10393/2011 Allowed. W.P. (C) No.5122/2011
Grievance of the petitioner is that being deserted by her husband, and for herself and her minor child, application under Section 91 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 162 of the Air Force Rule, 1969 is not being decided.
Learned counsel for respondents who appears on advance copy being served has produced the original record which shows that the application dated 9.5.2011 was actually received in the Air Force Head Quarters on 9.6.2011.
Procedures required the application be filed before Commanding Officer. Rather than return the application to the W.P. (C) No. 5122/2011 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. petitioner, she was informed the application has been forwarded to the Commanding Officer.
It is unfortunate that the petitioner has not disclosed said fact in the pleadings but we overlook the same.
The records of the respondents would reveal respondent is actively considering representation of the petitioner. The representation has been forwarded Commanding Officer for his comments and needless to state based thereon, necessary orders would be passed.
Since petitioner's husband is required to be put to show cause notice before any order is passed, reason being obvious; any order which entails a deduction the salary payable to the husband of the petitioner, which sum would be paid by her towards maintenance would require the husband to be heard.
Thus we dispose of the writ petition directing respondents to pass necessary orders within a period of 3 months from today.
Needless to state, if the decision favour of the petitioner, such amount would be remitted to the petitioner after deducting the same from the salary of petitioner's husband.
No costs.
Dasti. G (! PRADEEP NANDRlJOG, J ---=- W.P. (C) No. 5122/2011 2 ',': -"-,! --,1:
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.