IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24131 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.R.BALACHANDRAN(PAINTER SPECIAL GRADE REGIONAL WORK SHOP, PPD NO.39538, KSRTC (MAVELIKKARA STATION)RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, KRIPA, CHENIYAMEDU, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE WORKS MANAGER, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN, MAVELIKARA,. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHENGANNUR. BY SC JOHNSON P JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 24131 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while employed in KSRTC, suffered certain cardiac ailments and in September 2006, he underwent a surgical procedure, which could not but have been totally free of any payment, having regard to the fact that the surgical procedure was carried out in Sri.Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Science, the website of which will disclose that the entire facilities offered are free of charges. It appears that in 2005, petitioner's son, Pramod married Sreeja. Unfortunately, he died in a motor accident, sometime in 2006. It is stated that a claim before the MACT is pending in that regard. Sreeja, the daughter in law, moved the Court of the First Class Judicial Magistrate-II, Haripad under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act raising three grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the petitioner herein, father-in-law had received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the father of Sreeja at the time of the marriage and that gold weighing around 22 sovereigns belonging to Sreeja Wpc 24131/2009 2 were also continuing to be illegally detained by the petitioner and his wife. Further contention of mental agony raised by Sreeja as against her parents in law do not find favour with Judicial First Class Magistrate, who, as per Ext.P2, passed an order for return of the amount of Rs.50,000/- and the value of the gold. Now, the petitioner states that he is obliged to comply with the directions issued by the learned Magistrate on 22.4.2009 as per Ext.P2 judgment and that he has been advised that even if he were to file an appeal, he would be compelled to deposit at least one -third of the total amount fixed by the learned Magistrate. It is on this ground the petitioner seeks an order for out of turn release of the retiral benefits particularly, DCRG and CVP, payable to him on retirement from KSRTC. The Division Bench in W.A.289 of 2001, had directed that payment of DCRG and CVP will be on seniority basis on the date of retirement. Those directions have been affirmed by the Apex Court. While exceptional cases of marriage of daughter and certain other circumstances, which may appeal to the High Court as warranting out of turn allotment of retiral benefits, may call for individual orders; with the materials on record, even if the Wpc 24131/2009 3 petitioner has a case that he is physically unwell, one glaring fact stares at his face. In this land, where under the Constitution, there is every endeavour being made to empower woman including through the provisions of Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, the fact that stands proved before a judicial authority, viz, Judicial First Class Magistrate, is that the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the father of Sreeja, in connection with the marriage of that girl to the petitioner's son. I say this, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge Ext.P2 order, but the fact remains that Ext.P2 records a finding in that regard and such finding is supported by a document, which is a receipt marked as Ext.P1 in Ext.P2 proceedings. That is a receipt allegedly executed by the petitioner and attested by the local leader of a social organisation by name, SNDP. The petitioner did not tender evidence before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. He may have his reasons. He also says that sufficient opportunity was not there. Whatever that be, the learned Magistrate has noted that there was no serious dispute as to the existence or the contents of the document, the receipt Ext.P1, in Ext.P2 case. Social organisations, be they intending to protect Wpc 24131/2009 4 social interest, religious interest, caste interest or community interest, has to first ensure that the dignity of human life has to be upheld and a woman entering matrimony is not an object of barter. If the fact that an office bearer or social activist has counter signed and attested Ext.P1 in Ext.P2, it should be a matter of shame for the society. With the materials on record, I am not impressed to take this as a case, where the petitioner is entitled to the remedy of discretionary relief through writ court, which will act only in favour of citizens, who stand by the constitutional dictates, including fundamental duties. The petitioner was a public servant. He was employed in a public sector undertaking. Fortunately, for him, there is no proceeding against him under any other penal laws. At any rate, I am not persuaded merely by Ext.P1 or the fact of consequences of Ext.P2, to pass an order in favour of the petitioner, for out of turn release of DCRG and CVP. Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/25/8