AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. B.Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2; Ms. N.V.R.Rajya Laxmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.3; Mr. Kore Vishwanath, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5; and perused the material on record.
The case of the petitioner is that the action of respondent No.1 in not allowing the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,09,392/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs nine thousand three hundred and ninety two only) available at her credit in S.B. Account No.79109026996 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner by name Mr. T.Balakishtaiah (since deceased) owned the land admeasuring Acs.2-00 guntas in Survey No.1060/E, situated at Ghanpur Shivar, Wanaparthy District and the same was acquired by the Government towards Ghanapuram Project. In that connection, the compensation amount of Rs.25,09,392/- was deposited in the account of Mr. T.Balakishtaiah. After his demise, the said amount was transferred to the account of the petitioner. It is further stated that as the petitioner was sole nominee of Mr. T.Balakishtaiah, respondent No.1 bank, instead of allowing the petitioner to operate her bank account, illegally entertained the representation submitted by third parties (respondents No.4 and 5) wherein respondent No.4 claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Mr. T.Balakishtaiah and respondent No.5 claimed to be their son born from the wedlock.
Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that respondent No.4 is the legally wedded wife of Mr. T.Balakishtaiah and the same is evident from the public document (Aadhaar Cards).
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as evident from the public document (Aadhaar card) furnished by respondents No.4 and 5, the name of respondent No.4 is shown without her husband's name; it was shown as 'Telugu Satyamma C/o Telugu Balakishtaiah'. Learned counsel produced copy of the card issued under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme wherein the name of the petitioner was shown as 'W/o Balakishtaiah' and their photographs were also affixed on the card. Thus, it is contended that there is no dispute the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Mr. T.Balakishtaiah. In any case, respondents No.4 and 5 filed O.S. No.127 of 2022 before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy seeking to declare themselves as legal heirs of Mr. T.Balakishtaiah; the suit was dismissed for default. Thus, respondents No.4 and 5, having filed suit before the trial Court, cannot be permitted to oppose the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition.
In reply, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that the suit was filed in respect of another property and respondent No.4 is not a party to the said suit.
In the opinion of this Court, as there is dispute between two wives and family/children, the same has to be resolved before the competent civil Court. Thus, the action of respondent No.1 in withholding the operation of the bank account of the petitioner cannot be questioned in this writ petition.
Considering that the suit in O.S. No.127 of 2022 was filed before the trial Court and was dismissed for default, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is of Respondents No.4 and 5 are at liberty to approach competent civil Court or any other forum for redressal of their grievance. If any suit/original petition is filed and interim order is sought for, the trial Court shall pass orders without being influenced by any observations made in this order. However, to meet the ends of justice, status quo order as on today shall be maintained for a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed.