IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 9100 of 2009(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- ASMABI, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.LATE MADATHIL SHAFI, RESIDING AT MUTHIYAKKAL, PALLIKKARE II VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SMT.A.B.BEENU RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9100 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the wife of the deceased Madathil Shafi, who expired in a road accident in Kuwait on 22/09/2001. According to the petitioner, compensation that was due to her deceased husband was collected by the Indian Authorities and the amount was deposited with the first respondent to be distributed to the legal heirs. It is stated that in terms of Mohammedan Law of Succession, the petitioner being the wife, is entitled to 5/40 shares. However, seeing the name of one Merlena Therishta, as the wife of the deceased, ½ of the share that is due to the petitioner was kept in deposit by the first respondent in the name of aforesaid lady. Petitioner stated that entry in the Passport of the deceased husband showing the name of the aforesaid lady was in fact a mistake,and that she is the only wife of the deceased entitled to be released the amount in the deposit. Evidently, the claim of the petitioner that she was only wife of the deceased, that the person in whose name deposit made is W.P.(C) No. 9100 / 2009 2 ineligible to inherit estate of her husband, are matters for the petitioner to establish by appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the Civil Court. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm