Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
Harini – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Police, The Superintendent of Police, The Principal Accountant General, Jothimani – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Vellaichamy
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Mr.P.Gunasekaran
Family disputes regarding financial claims are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 for disbursement of 50% of the retirement benefits of her father, the fourth respondent. The court found this family dispute was civil in nature and not suitable for Article 226 adjudication. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue relief through appropriate legal channels.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims retirement benefits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court views dispute as unsuitable for article 226. (Para 3) |
| 3. petition dismissed; allowed to seek other remedies. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse 50% of the retirement benefits payable to the fourth respondent to the petitioner and her brother by considering the representation dated 05.02.2026 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is her father and he is neglecting her and not taking any steps for getting her married nor ready to pay any expenses towards her marriage and in the light of the fact that the fourth respondent is due to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2026, the petitioner is making a claim for payment of a portion of the terminal benefits payable to the fourth respondent to her and also claimed to have submitted a representation dated 05.02.2026 to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking such a relief.
3. This Court, after having perused the entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered view that the dispute that is sought to be resolved in this writ petition is purely civil in nature and it is a family dispute between the father and daughter, which cannot be a subject matter of adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for resolution of her grievance. No costs.
