Dismissed

Sanjeev Ramiakhan Mishra, v. the Commandant

Madras HC8 Apr 2014WP/26258/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a department's salary deduction for interim maintenance. The Court held that the department acted in pursuance of the Magistrate's order without a stay, and the petitioner failed to implead his wife.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sanjeev Ramiakhan Mishra, Vs the Commandant — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.04.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.26258 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶6

Sanjeev Ramlakhan Mishra

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

-vs-
1. The Commandant
Office of Commandant
National Disaster Response Force
Central Industrial Security Force
04 Bn. NDRF, Suraksha Campus
Arakkonam
Vellore District
2. The Senior Commandant
Office of Commandant
National Disaster Response Force
Central Industrial Security Force
04 Bn. NDRF, Suraksha Campus
Arakkonam
Vellore District
Tamil Nadu 631 152
3. The Deputy Inspector General
CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs
D Block Rajaji Salai
Besant Nagar
Chennai 600 090
4. The Director General
Central Industrial Security Force
CGO Complex, New Delhi ...Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records in letter dated 21.09.2011 under reference
outward No.CIDCO/Navi Mumbai 70/2011 on the file of the 5th
respondent and consequently the order in No.V-11014/4 Bn.NDRF (A)/

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Disc/CC/2011/7395 dated 21.09.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and thereby direct the respondents not to deduct the sum of Rs.15,000/- from the salary of the petitioner till the order is passed by the competent court for attachment of salary.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arvind Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Gunasekar Additional Central Government Standing Counsel

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by Mr.Sanjeev Ramlakhan Mishra challenging the impugned order passed by the Commandant, National Disaster Response Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Arakkonam, Vellore District in No.V-11014/4 Bn.NDRF(A)/ Disc/CC/2011/7395 dated 21.09.2011, to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and thereby direct the respondents not to deduct a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the salary of the petitioner till the order is passed by the competent Court for attachment of salary.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is working as Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force, was selected in National Disaster Rescue Force (NDRF). While so, he was transferred to NDRF at Arakkonam, Tamil Nadu in the month of February, 2011. From the date of joining service, he has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. While so, he had a matrimonial dispute with his wife, who filed an interim application in M.A.No.30 of 2011 for grant of maintenance and other reliefs under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The learned Magistrate, after going through the case, partly allowed the application directing the petitioner-husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to his wife from the date of application until final disposal of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has also filed an appeal, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Thane. In the meanwhile, the Protection Officer, who has no jurisdiction to direct the second respondent-Senior Commandant, directed the second respondent to pay the amount and to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioner. Since the order of the Protection Officer is amounting to circumvent the provisions of Section 9(h) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner has advised to file the present writ petition. Moreover, the first respondent also, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate, had deducted the said amount of Rs.15,000/- as per the further direction given by the Protection Officer. Since the first respondent is going to

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

continuously deduct for the forthcoming months, the petitioner is constrained to challenge the direction given by the Protection Officer. On this basis, he has also moved M.P.No.1 of 2012 to implead the Protection Officer as one of the necessary respondents. Adding further, it was stated that the petitioner has also raised an objection for implementation of the Court's order and requested the department not to recover the sum of Rs.15,000/- from the salary in order to pay the same to his wife, as the dispute is still pending between him and his wife before the learned Sessions Judge, Thane. Since the Protection Officer, Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Urban Project, Navi Mumbai cannot give any direction to the petitioner's department, the present writ petition has been filed, he pleaded.

¶17

Opposing the above prayer, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In view of the dispute between the petitioner and his wife, the petitioner's wife Tmt.Savita Sanjeev Mishra filed an application for maintenance, accommodation and medical expenses before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi at CBO Belapur, Navi Mumbai and requested the Protection Officer, Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Urban Project Turbhe Panvel, Navi Mumbai to comply with the order. Since the Protection Officer has given a direction, on the basis of the interim order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in M.A.No.30 of 2011, to deduct a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the monthly salary of the petitioner towards the maintenance, accommodation and medical expenses of his wife Tmt.Savita Sanjeev Mishra, after taking legal advise from the Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser, Ministry of Law and Justice, the respondents were directed to honour the direction issued by the Court by deducting the amount of maintenance from the petitioner's monthly salary. Only as per the above direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is being recovered from the salary of the petitioner from the month of September, 2011. As against the said order, he has also filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Thane and the same is also pending for consideration. In view of that, the present writ petition is not legally maintainable. Adding further, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have acted only as per the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the power of the Protection Officer is absolutely untenable and unjustified. He further urged that when the Protection Officer has acted only in view of the interim direction given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vashi, Navi Mumbai for deducting a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner towards the maintenance, accommodation and medical expenses of the petitioner's wife till the disposal of the matter, no fault can be found either against the respondents or against the Protection Officer.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

This Court, finding full merits on the submissions made by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, is unable to espouse the prayer made in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's wife Tmt.Savita Sanjeev Mishra filed an application for maintenance, accommodation and medical expenses before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi at CBO Belapur, Navi Mumbai in M.A.No.30 of 2011. Accepting the case of the petitioner's wife, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in his order dated 30.4.2011, partly allowing the application of the petitioner's wife, taking note of the fact that Tmt.Savita Sanjeev Mishra is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, directed the petitioner not to commit any act of domestic violence with his wife and son till the disposal of the main application and further directed the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to his wife from the date of application until final disposal of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Thane. The same is also pending, admittedly, there is no order of stay granted against the operation of the interim order passed in M.A.No.30 of 2011 dated 30.4.2011. While so, the petitioner cannot come to this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the power of the Protection Officer, on the ground that the Protection Officer has no authority to give a direction to the respondent-Department to deduct Rs.15,000/- from the petitioner's monthly salary and to remit the same for disbursal to the petitioner's wife. When the Protection Officer has acted only as per the direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi, Navi Mumbai in his order passed in M.A.No.30 of 2011 dated 30.4.2011, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Secondly, it must be mentioned that when the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the power of the Protection Officer and also to implead him as one of the necessary respondents, the writ petition should not have been filed without impleading the petitioner's wife, in whose favour both the learned Judicial Magistrate and the Protection Officer have acted for payment of Rs.15,000/- from the petitioner's monthly salary. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2012, 1 and 2 of 2011 are also dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Dated:22.05.2014

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

The Commandant Office of Commandant National Disaster Response Force Central Industrial Security Force 04 Bn. NDRF, Suraksha Campus Arakkonam Vellore District 2. The Senior Commandant Office of Commandant National Disaster Response Force Central Industrial Security Force 04 Bn. NDRF, Suraksha Campus Arakkonam Vellore District - 631 152 3. The Deputy Inspector General CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs D Block Rajaji Salai Besant Nagar Chennai 4. The Director General Central Industrial Security Force CGO Complex, New Delhi. 5. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi at CBO B Belapur, Navi Mumbai. 6. The Sessions Judge, Thane.

¶27

1 CC to Mr.K.Gunasekar, Senior Penel Counsel, Central Government, Advocate SR.No. 17319

¶28

1 CC to Mr.M.Arvind Kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 16879

¶29

W.P.No.26258 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶30

SKV(CO) PSI (26.05.2014)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sanjeev Ramiakhan Mishra, v. the Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Ramiakhan Mishra, v. the Commandant

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

R.Venkatesan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.P.Kamalakannan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Shanmugavel Vs the Secretary

Muthuswamy Vs the Collector

M.Sathiyavijayan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Vijayan, Vs the District Collector