1 2025:CGHC:2079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 207 of 2025 • Radha Bai W/o Shri Rudra Sharan Pratap Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited A Mini Ratna Category Company Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Personnel, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Colliery, Kusmunda Project District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Senior Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Colliery, Kusmunda Project District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5. Shri Rudra Sharan Pratap Singh S/o Late Shri Deewan Prasad Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o Q. No. M-35, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, Chunchuni Colony, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/01/2025 Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.01.29 11:01:52 +0530 2 1. By way of challenging the order dated 19.12.2024, whereby the representation of the petitioner for securing the funds and retiral benefits of the respondent No.5 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the legally married wife of the respondent No.5, who was working with respondent/SECL. It was alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No.5 has relation with some another women as such the respondent No.5 has filed an application for Divorce which was allowed and decree of divorce has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed appeal before this Court which is registered as FA(M) No.154/2017. On the basis of divorce obtained by the respondent No.5, he got removed petitioners name from the official record and has substituted the name of his second wife Kamlesh Jaiswal in the official records. The petitioner is not getting any amount from the respondent No.5, as such she has moved an application before the respondent No.4 for grant of retiral benefits from the account of respondent No.5, which has been rejected by impugned order dated 19.12.2024, Hence she has filed instant petition. 3. The petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- 10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 19.12.2024 bearing No. passed by the respondent No.4. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to disburse the retiral dues of the respondent No.5 to the petitioner as well, in accordance with law. 10.3. Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts and 3 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4. Cost of the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even decree of divorce passed against the petitioner in-spite of this fact the petitioner is entitled to get some part from the retiral benefits of her husband/respondent No.5 and as such the grant of retiral dues pertaining to the petitioner is required to be stayed till the final disposal of the FA(M) No.154/2017. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/SECL submits that the petitioner is having remedy before the Court concerned for getting permanent alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and she cannot file an application for restraining the respondent No.5 for getting his retiral benefits as a decree of divorce has already been passed against the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the parties and particularly the fact that money belongs to the respondent No.5 which is his retiral dues and as such the respondent No.5 alone is entitled to get the said money after his retirement and the petitioner cannot be granted relief while stopping the payment of retiral dues to the respondent No.5. Since the petitioner has filed appeal challenging decree of divorce obtained by the respondent No.5, she can file suitable application for getting amount of maintenance. The relief(s) as sought by the petitioner 4 cannot be granted in a petition as framed and filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is having alternate remedy for getting maintenance and she should avail the remedy available under the law accordingly, relief(s) as claimed in the petition as framed and filed cannont be granted to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE vaishali