HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14969 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gambhir Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner happens to be ex- Army man who retired from the post of Naik on 31.05.2024, however, there happens to be the inter se dispute between the petitioner who is the husband and the wife. Proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC and also against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to be initiated, pursuant whereto an order was passed by the competent court on 03.07.2023 for awarding interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. However, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Rs.23716/- came to be deducted from the salary of the applicant. Constraint with the same, the writ petitioner preferred O.A. No.1293 of 2023, Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India before the Army Tribunal, however, the said application came to be dismissed as withdrawn as according to the writ petitioner, he was accorded the benefits for which he had approached the Tribunal. However, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that total amount of Rs.118560/- has been illegally deducted, but the same has not been refunded inspite of the fact that the writ petitioner has approached the authority in this regard. 3. Prayer in the present writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the deducted salary of Rs.118560/-. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that whatever might be, it is for the writ petitioner to approach the competent authority while pressing his claim and virtually the present writ petition has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Gambhir Tripathi Kamlesh Kumar Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India and 3 others .....Respondent(s) been preferred without therebeing any representation or application being preferred before the authorities. He submits that in case, the writ petitioner prefers any application, then the same be decided strictly in accordance with law. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, the grievance of the writ petitioner is regarding deduction of the salary to the tune of Rs.118560/-. Contention is that the said deduction has been done unilaterally also. In the opinion of the Court, since nothing is forthcoming as to what was the basis for deduction, thus the writ petitioner is directed to approach the Respondent no.2, General Officer Commander, Hq. 31 Armed Division C/o 56 A.P.O. Jhansi Cantt. while filing a representation along with the self attested copy of the petition and certified copy of the order by 17.10.2025, who shall decide the representation of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 7, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 14969 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad