The Orissa High Court at Cuttack on Monday stepped in to protect the right of an individual over her own savings, allowing a woman to prematurely close her five-year fixed deposits to meet urgent family expenses for a marriage. The judgment, delivered by Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad, came as a relief to petitioner Priyadarsini Das, who had been denied the withdrawal by government authorities citing a restrictive rule.
Background
The case revolved around Rule 8(d) of the National Savings Time Deposit Scheme, 2019, as amended in November 2023. Ms. Das had invested her money in five fixed deposits under the scheme, each with a tenure of five years. However, facing immediate financial requirements for a family wedding, she sought to prematurely encash them.
Her lawyer, Parsuram Panda, argued that the scheme nowhere places an absolute prohibition on premature withdrawal. Instead, it provides for a reduced rate of interest if deposits are withdrawn after four years but before completion of the full term. The petitioner emphasized that the funds were her own life savings, and marriage was a necessity traditionally recognized under Hindu law as a justifiable ground for urgent expenditure.
The Union government, represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India P.K. Parhi, disagreed. He maintained that the rule was unambiguous and clearly barred any withdrawal before four years, effectively leaving the petitioner with no remedy.
Court’s Observations
Justice Shripad, after hearing both sides, took a practical view of the situation. The bench noted that it was “her own money, which she has parked in five deposits,” and questioned how the authorities could deny her the ability to use it for a pressing family need.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Upholds Maintenance for Wife and Major Unmarried Daughter, Cites Hindu Law Obligations
Referring to an old Privy Council ruling in Hanoomanpersaud Pandey vs Mussamat Babooee (1843), the court highlighted that Hindu law acknowledges three necessities: emergencies, family obligations, and social duties. “Therefore, it cannot be gainfully argued that petitioner has no pressing need for the funds,” the judge remarked.
The court also dissected Rule 8(d), pointing out that it did not begin with negative phrasing such as “No premature encashment is permitted.” Instead, it specifically discussed the rate of interest applicable if withdrawal occurs after four years. “Such a rule, with the text reproduced above, cannot be treated as putting a complete embargo against premature withdrawal,” Justice Shripad observed.
Importantly, the court emphasized that the scheme was not a statute but subordinate legislation, which allows for a more lenient interpretation in favour of citizens.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Upholds Maintenance for Wife and Major Unmarried Daughter, Cites Hindu Law Obligations
In a firm order, the High Court quashed the government’s rejection letter dated August 5, 2025, and issued a writ of mandamus directing authorities to release the deposits within two weeks. The court added a warning: if officials delayed compliance, they would have to pay interest at the rate of 1% per month personally.
Case Title:- Priyadarsini Das v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 18858 of 2025
