Dismissed

Md.Habeeb Ahmed v. Smt.Fareeda Yasmeen

Telangana HC5 Aug 2011CRP/2635/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging an interim injunction against disbursing family pension and retirement benefits. The High Court held that since both parties acknowledged the wife's status, the lower court correctly directed withholding funds to avoid multiplicity of proceedings pending the main suit's outcome.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Md.Habeeb Ahmed Vs Smt.Fareeda Yasmeen — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2635 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 15.4.2011 passed in I.A.No. 611 of 2010 in OP No. 1486 of 2010 by the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner-husband herein is the respondent in I.A No. 611 of 2010, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the first respondent-wife herein against respondents 3 and 4 from disbursing the family pension, retirement benefits, gratuity, provident fund and other amounts of petitioner-husband till the disposal of the OP No. 1486 of 2010. The Court below held that the interim injunction order granted earlier on 10.11.2010 is made absolute subject to the result in the main OP as the petitioner did not deny the name of the second respondent in the service records as his wife. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶4

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below ought to have

¶5

seen that the pension and the retirement benefits of a pensioner are his personal assets and the courts are barred from restraining the pensioner from taking his benefits as per Section 4 of Pensions Act, 1871.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record.

¶7

As seen from the record, the petitioner herein did not deny second respondent as his wife and the second respondent also did not deny stating that she is not the wife of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the court below with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, directed the respondents 3 and 4 to withhold whatever the amounts which are payable to the petitioner till the disposal of OP No. 1486 of 2010 as major amount was already drawn by the petitioner.

¶8

In view of the above, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

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

¶10

______________________

¶11

GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶12

DATE: 05.08.2011 KA

Md.Habeeb Ahmed v. Smt.Fareeda Yasmeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Habeeb Ahmed v. Smt.Fareeda Yasmeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shakuntala Aroa Vs Sunil Sachdev

K. Sajjan Raj, Vs Gopisetty Chandra Mouli

A.Manik Rao Vs Mrs. K.Suneetha Wesley

Bandari Mallappa alias Mahender Vs Tarachand Devda

Mr. Ubedullah Shareef, Vs Mrs. Ameena Begum (S. Madhavi Latha)

Gulabchand Pukhraj Money Lenders Vs R.B.Jinender Raj