Allahabad High Court
Vipul Pati Tripathi vs Smt Priyanka Tripathi And 5 Others on 15 December, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238022-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 855 of 2023
Appellant :- Vipul Pati Tripathi
Respondent :- Smt Priyanka Tripathi And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rashid Ali,Shiv Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Ref:- Order on Delay Condonation Application
The delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court and is, otherwise, not seriously opposed.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
Ref:- Order on Special Appeal
The appellant has instituted the present appeal along with application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 09.10.2023 in Writ Petition No.15109 of 2023. A brief background of facts giving rise to the controversy would be apt to be noticed at the outset.
The respondent no.1 Smt. Priyanka Tripathi filed Writ Petition No.15109 of 2023 with the prayer to direct the authorities/ employer of her deceased husband to release the entire retiral death-cum-settlement benefits due to her husband. A direction was also sought to consider the petitioner's application. It is not in issue that the respondent-petitioner happens to be the wife of Girjesh Pati Tripathi, who was employed in the respondent Power Corporation. The husband of the respondent-petitioner died on account of covid. It appears that while her husband was alive, the respondent had matrimonial issues with him and her husband initiated divorce proceedings which were pending before the family Court. It is admitted to the parties that no decree of divorce was, however, passed. In the service records, the respondent/petitioner was shown to be the nominee of the deceased employee. After the death of the husband, the retiral benefits were not released to the respondent-petitioner on an objection filed by other family members, as per which a dispute in that regard was pending. It is in this context that the respondent-petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition, wherein a direction has been issued to the employers to release the retiral benefits to the respondent-petitioner. Learned Single Judge was also apprised of the fact that a suit for injunction has been filed by the appellant claiming entitlement to the retiral benefits on the basis of a Will. The Will, apparently, has also been challenged by the respondent-petitioner in a pending suit. The proceedings with regard to injunction and challenge to Will are therefore pending before the Civil Court. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has observed that the remedy of the appellant would be to seek appropriate relief from the competent Civil Court in Original Suit No.173 of 2020 or any other competent suit or proceedings. Learned Single Judge has moreover held that on account of pendency of such civil dispute, the release of retiral benefits to the respondent-petitioner cannot be withheld.
We have heard Sri S.B. Singh for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma for respondent no.1 and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, who has entered appearance on behalf of the Power Corporation. The facts, as have been noticed, are not in issue. It remains undisputed that the respondent-petitioner is the legally wedded wife and though there were matrimonial discords between the parties, but no decree for divorce had been passed. In such circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge, particularly when the status of the respondent-petitioner as wife is clearly recorded as a nominee in the service records.
Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon a judgement of Supreme Court in Ram Chander Talwar and others Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and others 2010 (10) SCC 671, wherein following observations have been made in Para No.5:-
"Section 45ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Section 45ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed."
Relying upon the above paragraph, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the nominee can only receive the amount but its disbursement must be withheld to await outcome of the proceedings pending before the Civil Court.
The relief sought by the appellant, virtually, amounts to grant of injunction which could be availed only in the Original Suit No.173 of 2020, and a writ would not be for such purposes. Learned Single Judge has otherwise made it open for the aggrieved person to seek appropriate relief from the competent Civil Court. The direction issued in favour of the wife for release of death-cum-settlement claims of the deceased husband, therefore, merits no interference.
Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.12.2023
SP/-
