Syamala vs The Director of Accounts (Postal), GPO Buildings, Thiruvananthapuram-695001, The Deputy Director, Post and Telecommunicating Audit Office, 5th Floor, Corporation Building, Thiruvananthapuram-695033 and Radhamani

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The third respondent (Radhamani) filed O.P. No. 408 of 2012 before the Family Court, Nedumangad for a declaration that she and her children are the sole legal heirs entitled to succeed to the assets of late Sasidharan, including his service benefits and family pension and for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Sasidharan. There is also a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent therein from withdrawing the DCRG and other service benefits. Respondents 1 and 2 before this Court are not parties to the Original Petition filed before the Family Court. The petitioner is the respondent in the Original Petition. Along with the Original Petition, Radhamani filed I.A. No. 331 of 2012 for temporary injunction. The Family Court granted an ad interim order of injunction. It would appear that the clerical errors in the interim injunction order were rectified. The petitioner is aggrieved by the ad interim order of injunction granted by the Family Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Original Petition before the Family Court is not maintainable, in view of Section 4 of the Pensions Act, 1871. The counsel also raised a contention that the court below has no jurisdiction to grant an interim order of injunction.

The petitioner, though entered appearance before the Family Court, has not filed the written statement in the Original Petition or counter affidavit in the application for temporary injunction. The learned counsel submitted that subsequent to the filing of this Original Petition (FC) before this Court, a counter affidavit was filed in the application for temporary injunction. When an ad interim order of injunction is granted, normally, the party aggrieved could very well appear before Court and contend that the interim order is liable to be vacated. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by filing this Original Petition (Family Court). We are of the view that the petitioner can very well raise all the contentions before the Family Court. The Family Court shall dispose of the application for temporary injunction, as expeditiously as possible.