IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16372 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SHAMSUDEEN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VALLAVILA, KOLLAMKODE P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, (ASST:TRANSPORT OFFICER, PARASSALA, RETIRED ON 31.5.2008). BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:395023. BY ADV.SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16372 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent. 2.The petitioner states that he availed an amount of Rupees Four Lakhs as a loan on 10.4.2008 in connection with the marriage of his daughter on 17.4.2008, which preceded his retirement on 31.5.2008. On this premise, he seeks an order for out of turn disbursement of DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension. 3.In terms of the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.289/01, exceptional situations which may require out of turn payment of retiral benefits is the criteria, on which, an employee whose due turn of seniority based on the date of retirement has not yet arrived, could seek a direction of the High Court for release of retiral benefits out of turn. This Court has consistently taken the stand that in WPC.16372/09 Page numbers cases of immediate requirement for treatment, for avoiding distress action against homes and residences and also for marriage of daughters, amounts could be released. 4.In the case in hand, what shocks the conscience of this Court is that a person who expects an amount of around Rupees Four Lakhs as retiral benefits is stated to have spent Rupees Four Lakhs by availing loan in connection with the marriage of one daughter. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner may be right in saying that in the true state of affairs, such amounts may be required for a marriage. Adv.Sri.Mohammed Kunji, who made certain submissions at the request of this Court, said it would be a sin in Islam to give or receive dowry. In so far as Mohammedan law is concerned, the legally accepted norm is only mahr to the bride. The fundamental tenets of Islam and the principles of Mohammedan law do not admit of the bride or her father giving any amount to the groom. This is notwithstanding the WPC.16372/09 Page numbers fact that payment of dowry is itself one prohibited by law. Vociferous declarations are insufficient to curb the menace, not only of dowry but also of disproportionate spending when families try to demonstrate themselves, compelled by social pressures, when more than the day the wedding bells ring, what is more important for the bride and the groom, is their future in unison. 6. Taking into consideration that more than one year has elapsed after the marriage, I deem it appropriate that the retiral benefits due to the petitioner, viz., D.C.R.G. and Commuted Value of Pension are paid off within a period of six months from now, out of turn, in terms of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.16/6.