HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Order Date :- 18.1.2013
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3065 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ritu Kumar Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Secretary &Others
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the letter dated 30.10.2012 issued by Assistant Record Officer informing the decision taken by the Headquarter, Western Command sanctioning the maintenance allowance @ 27.5%, which comes to Rs.6,857/- per month on the application of the wife of the petitioner, Smt. Jaishree. It appears that some matrimonial dispute is going on between the petitioner and his wife. Wife has filed a suit for maintenance before lower court, which is pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the suit, written statement has also been filed but he admitted that no order for maintenance has been passed in the said suit. He submitted that once she has filed the suit for maintenance in Civil Court, her application for maintenance before the authority concerned was not maintainable. Authority concerned has illegally entertained the application and directed for the payment of maintenance at Rs.6,857/- per month.
He relied upon paragraph 13 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in 2012 (90) ALR, 24.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that some dispute is going on between husband and wife. Headquarter, Western Command on the application of the wife has directed to pay maintenance at Rs.6,857/- per month which is 27.5% of salary. It is not the case of the petitioner that Western Command has no legal right to direct for the payment of maintenance. The maintenance fixed can not be said to be unjustified. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (Supra) has no relevance to the present case. Para 13 of the judgment is reproduced below:
"When a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act. When an Act creates a right or obligation and enforces the performance thereof in a specified manner, "that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner". Thus for enforcement of a right/obligation under a statute, the only remedy available to the person aggrieved is to get adjudication of rights under the said Act. (See doe d. Rochester (BP) Vs. Bridges, reported in 109 ER, 1001, Barrachlough Vs. Brown, reported in 1897 AC, 615, The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. K.S.Wadke and others, reported in AIR 1975 SC, 2238 and Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) thr. L.R.s, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 193."
On the facts and circumstances, the Court declines to interfere in the matter. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2013
Print Page
Order Date :- 18.1.2013
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3065 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ritu Kumar Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Secretary &Others
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the letter dated 30.10.2012 issued by Assistant Record Officer informing the decision taken by the Headquarter, Western Command sanctioning the maintenance allowance @ 27.5%, which comes to Rs.6,857/- per month on the application of the wife of the petitioner, Smt. Jaishree. It appears that some matrimonial dispute is going on between the petitioner and his wife. Wife has filed a suit for maintenance before lower court, which is pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the suit, written statement has also been filed but he admitted that no order for maintenance has been passed in the said suit. He submitted that once she has filed the suit for maintenance in Civil Court, her application for maintenance before the authority concerned was not maintainable. Authority concerned has illegally entertained the application and directed for the payment of maintenance at Rs.6,857/- per month.
He relied upon paragraph 13 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in 2012 (90) ALR, 24.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that some dispute is going on between husband and wife. Headquarter, Western Command on the application of the wife has directed to pay maintenance at Rs.6,857/- per month which is 27.5% of salary. It is not the case of the petitioner that Western Command has no legal right to direct for the payment of maintenance. The maintenance fixed can not be said to be unjustified. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (Supra) has no relevance to the present case. Para 13 of the judgment is reproduced below:
"When a statute gives a right and provides a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act. When an Act creates a right or obligation and enforces the performance thereof in a specified manner, "that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner". Thus for enforcement of a right/obligation under a statute, the only remedy available to the person aggrieved is to get adjudication of rights under the said Act. (See doe d. Rochester (BP) Vs. Bridges, reported in 109 ER, 1001, Barrachlough Vs. Brown, reported in 1897 AC, 615, The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. K.S.Wadke and others, reported in AIR 1975 SC, 2238 and Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) thr. L.R.s, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 193."
On the facts and circumstances, the Court declines to interfere in the matter. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment