Civil Revision No. 7708 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7708 of 2011 Date of decision. 14.12.2011 Amarjit Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Kurukshetra ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Amarjit Kaur, a widow to whom compensation was awarded vide award dated 16.01.2010 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short 'the Tribunal') has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by learned Tribunal dismissing her application for pre-mature release of an amount of Rs.1,69,763/- lying in FDR No. 8496906 dated 27.7.2010 with Union Bank of India, Kurukshetra. While dismissing the application, learned Tribunal has observed that this amount is meant to save the woman from a life of hardships and that she could not be allowed to waste this amount on the marriage of her son. I have heard Mr.R.S. Longia, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Civil Revision No. 7708 of 2011 --2-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the son of the petitioner, who is going to be married, is an earning hand now. According to her, it is her social obligation to marry him and for that purpose, she requires some money. According to him, the marriage can not be solemnised without money and if she is not allowed to avail her money, she will have to borrow the same from private sources where the loan is available at a very high interest rate and that she would be in the clutches of the money lender. Though, the amount was awarded to the petitioner on the death of her husband and it was meant to help her ward off the hard days, yet as her son has come of the marriageable age and is earning, she can depend on her son for her maintenance. Marriage of a son is the social obligation of the parents. In the absence of the father, the mother has to perform the ceremony and she would require money for the same. The money in the FDR would be fetching a petty amount as interest while she will have to borrow money from private money lender at a very high interest rate and the entire amount with the petitioner in the FDR would have to be paid one day as interest to the money lender. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the requirement of the petitioner for money is genuine. Therefore, the petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, learned Tribunal is directed to release the amount to the petitioner against proper receipt and identification. 14.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge