The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman seeking directions to prevent the release of pensionary and other service benefits payable to her husband. The Court held that a writ petition cannot be used as a substitute for execution proceedings arising out of maintenance orders passed by competent courts.
Justice Mumminei Sudheer Kumar passed the order on June 4, 2026, while hearing a plea filed by Rajammal against authorities of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and her husband, N. Tamilmani.
Background of the Case
According to the petitioner, she is the legally wedded wife of the third respondent, N. Tamilmani. Her counsel informed the Court that disputes had arisen between the couple, leading to several proceedings before family and civil courts.
The petitioner stated that maintenance orders had been passed in her favour. However, she alleged that her husband had failed to comply with those directions. On that basis, she approached the High Court seeking a direction to the pension authorities not to release pensionary and other terminal benefits payable to him.
After examining the pleadings and submissions, the Court found that the grievance essentially stemmed from a dispute between husband and wife regarding compliance with maintenance orders.
Justice M. S. Kumar observed that the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, could not be converted into an execution court or a family court for resolving such disputes.
“The writ petition seeking the relief as noted above cannot be entertained, as this Court cannot be converted as an Execution Court or a Family Court for resolving the disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent,” the Court observed.
The judge noted that if the petitioner had already obtained favourable maintenance orders, the proper course would be to initiate execution proceedings or adopt other remedies available under law for enforcing those orders.
The Court further emphasized that the petition did not disclose any infringement of a legal or constitutional right by the pension authorities. The dispute, according to the Court, was solely between the petitioner and her husband.
“Absolutely, there is no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner that is infringed by the respondents 1 and 2,” the Court said while concluding that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Holding that the relief sought could not be granted in writ jurisdiction, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the petitioner remains free to pursue her claims and enforce her rights before the appropriate forum through legally permissible proceedings.
No costs were awarded.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajammal v. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust & Others
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 14786 of 2026
Judge: Justice Mumminei Sudheer Kumar
Decision Date: June 4, 2026
