A woman who said her estranged husband had failed to pay maintenance despite court orders approached the Madras High Court seeking to stop the release of his pension and retirement benefits.
However, the court declined her request, holding that the dispute could not be resolved through a writ petition and that she must pursue the remedies available before the appropriate court.
The order was passed by Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while hearing a petition filed by Rajammal.
Why did the woman want her husband's pension stopped?
According to the petition, Rajammal sought directions to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and the Transport Corporation (KUM) Ltd. not to disburse the pensionary and terminal benefits payable to her husband, N. Tamilmani.
She told the court that maintenance orders had already been passed in her favour by the family court and civil court. Despite those orders, she alleged that her husband had not paid the maintenance amount directed by the courts.
Arguing that the retirement benefits should be withheld, she contended that such a step was necessary to ensure compliance with the maintenance orders.
What did the court say about the plea?
The court found that the grievance raised in the petition was essentially against the husband and not against the authorities responsible for releasing pension and retirement benefits.
Rejecting the plea, the court observed: "This Court cannot be converted as an Execution Court or a Family Court for resolving the disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent, who are wife and husband."
The court held that the writ petition could not be used as a mechanism either to execute maintenance orders or to settle the dispute between the couple.
Can maintenance orders be enforced through a writ petition?
Addressing that question, the court said that if the woman had succeeded in the maintenance proceedings, she must approach the trial court for enforcement of those orders.
The court further observed: "Under no circumstances, the petitioner can be allowed to maintain the present writ petition either for execution of the orders passed in the maintenance case or to resolve the dispute between her and the third respondent."
In other words, the High Court said the appropriate course was to seek enforcement through the forum empowered to execute such orders rather than through a writ petition.
What happens next for the woman?
While dismissing the petition, the court clarified that Rajammal was not left without legal remedies.
The order stated that she remains: "At liberty to agitate her rights and all other contentions raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceedings."
The ruling means the woman can continue pursuing recovery of the maintenance amount through the legal channels available for enforcement of maintenance orders, but not through a writ petition seeking to stop her husband's pension and retirement benefits.
(With TOI inputs)
