Dismissed

Doppalapudi Margaret Prasanthi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2020WP/16928/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition filed by a wife praying for the stoppage of terminal pension benefits of her husband despite a valid 2016 recorded compromise. The bench held that without a statutory provision or an order setting aside the compromise, the stoppage is impermissible and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus praying for stoppage of pension benefits is dismissed; representation awaited by the department.

Doppalapudi Margaret Prasanthi, Vs The State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.16928 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not disbursing the terminal benefits of the 4^th respondent who is husband of the petitioner and not taking any action on the representation dated 17.09.2018, as illegal.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Konteti Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, who represents the effected party.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is the wife of 4^th respondent. Because of certain domestic disputes matters who filed in the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court and a compromise is recorded in M.C.No.138 of 2011. Thereafter, all the pending cases were also withdrawn.

¶6

The Writ Petition is filed in the year 2019 on the ground that the compromise entered into before the Court is fraudulent compromise. It is stated that an application was also filed before the trial Court to reopen the matter. However, as things stand, as on the date of hearing, both the counsel agreed that, no order has been passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, reopening the compromise that was recorded on 02.02.2016.

¶7

Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent filed his counter affidavit and argued that pension is something personal to the

¶8

¶9

petitioner and on the ground that an application has been filed to reopen a compromise, the pending pension cannot be stopped. Apart from that, he also submits that the petitioner does not have a right to seek the writ of mandamus as prayed for in the application, particularly seeking an order not to disburse the terminal benefits payable to the 4^th respondent and not taking any action on the representation dated 17.09.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand states that if the pension is paid, petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and it is impossible for her to recover the amount.

¶10

As things stand, admitted by both the parties, a compromise that has been recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction has not reopened or set aside. The said compromise is recorded in the year 2016. The said compromise is binding on both the parties and all the terms entered were also binding. Apart from that, stoppage of pension at the instance of wife without any statutory backing or any order of the Court is not permissible. Also a writ of Mandamus can only be given when the rights of a person, have been breached by the respondents. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any statutory or other provisions of Law, for stopping the pension. Therefore, unless there is a right vested in the party, there cannot be a remedy particularly a writ of mandamus. On the ground that the petitioner’s representation is pending, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief of stoppage of pension that is payable.

¶11

¶12

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedies, if so advised.

¶13

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶15

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶16

Date : 19-02-2020

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.16928 OF 2019

¶20

Date : 19-02-2020

¶21

sdp

Doppalapudi Margaret Prasanthi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doppalapudi Margaret Prasanthi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.Farhin, Vs Union of India

K Moses Ratna Kumar Vs the State of Ap

D.Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Swarna Manova Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Kesineni Vijaya Kumar Vs the State of Ap