IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10898 of 2004 Between: Pagolu Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.Sreeramulu, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Krishna Dist.Cooperative Central Bank ltd., Machilipatnam, rep.by its General Manager. 2 Manager, Krishna Dist.Coop.Central Bank Ltd., Gudlavallru,Krishna Dist. 3 Pagolu Sreeramulu, S/o.Pakeeru, Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Machilipatnam,Krishna Dist. (Presently at Gudlavalleru Branch of the Bank). .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in not considering and disposing of the representation of the petitioner requesting them not to remove her name from the service records of the 3rd respondent as his wife till today as illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted, and for-bearing them from removing the name of the petitioner from the service records of the 3rd respondent as his wife. Counsel for the Petitioner:S.SURENDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not considering and disposing of the petitioner’s representation requesting them not to remove her name from the service records of the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that she is the legally wedded wife of the 3rd respondent and they were blessed with the two daughters and sons. The 3rd respondent is an employee of the respondent’s bank from the year 1966. She submitted that her husband filed a petition in O.P. No.1 of 2000 for divorce before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada on the ground of desertion and cruelty, with false allegations. She further submitted that she also filed a case in M.C. No.27 of 1990 before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada for payment of maintenance and the learned judge ordered for payment of maintenance from 1990 onwards. She also submitted that she came to know about the vices of the 3rd respondent such as debauchery and gambling and she questioned the same, for which, he beat her mercilessly. While the things stood thus, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada passed a decree dated 20-03-2004 granting divorce to them. Thereafter, she preferred an appeal in CMA. No.1260 of 2004 before this Court and this Court was pleased to grant interim suspension of the said order. She mainly submitted that on the basis of the decree dated 20-03- 2004 her husband is trying to remove her name from his service records and also trying to incorporate some other woman’s name in her place. After receiving the interim suspension of the decretal order dated 20-03- 2004 and on coming to know the steps taken by her husband for removal of her name from the service records, she made a representation dated 30-04-2004 requesting the respondents 1 and 2 not to remove her name from the service records of the 3rd respondent as his wife. She also personally approached the respondents 1 and 2 and requested them not to remove her name and she also understood that the respondents 1 and 2 are bent upon to remove her name from the service records of the 3rd respondent. In view of the above, she filed the present petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is an order of this Court dated 27-04-2004 passed in CMP. No.9573 of 2004 in CMA. No.1260 of 2004 granting interim suspension of the decree dated 20-03-2004 passed by the Court below the 3rd respondent is taking steps to remove the name of the petitioner is illegal and seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to remove the name of the petitioner and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent says no objection to pass appropriate orders on the representation said to have been made by the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case and pursuant to the interim suspension order passed by this Court on 27-04-2004 in CMP. No.9573 of 2004 in CMA. No.1260 of 2004 the petitioner made a representation dated 30-04-2004, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the representation dated 30-04-2004, said to have been made by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 12-06-2008 LSK