Recognized As 'Necessity' Under Hindu Law: Orissa High Court Allows Premature Withdrawal Of Fixed Deposits For Marriage

The Orissa High Court, while allowing a woman for premature withdrawal of Post Bank Fixed Deposits for marriage, has held that the same is recognized as "necessity" under the Hindu Law.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed with a grievance that the Petitioner was not being permitted to close her fixed deposits prematurely.

The Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad observed, "Petitioner is badly in need of money for the marriage in the family. It is her own money, which she has parked in five deposits in question for a fixed period of five years. Hindu Law recognizes three traditional necessities, namely, aapaatkaale, vyaahaarike & kutumbaarthe vide Hanoomanpersaud Pandey vs Mussamat Babooee, 6 MIA 393. Therefore, it cannot be gainfully argued that petitioner has no pressing need for the funds...."

The Petitioner was represented by M/s. Parsuram Panda, while the Respondent was represented by DSGI P.K. Parhi.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of the Court to amended Rule 8(d) of the National Savings Time Deposit Scheme, 2019, submitted that premature encashment of the fixed deposit is not completely embargoed and therefore, it should be permitted by the Centre. He also highlighted the necessity for premature encashment of the fixed deposits, namely, the marriage. 

On the other hand, the Penal Counsel appearing for Centre submitted that the text of Rule 8(d), relied upon by the Petitioner, is as clear as Gangetic Waters and it does not permit premature encashment prior to the expiry of four years, five years being the term of deposit

Reasoning By Court 

The Court stressed that the Petitioner is badly in need of money for the marriage in the family and observed, ".....After all, the funds in deposit belong to her and not to the Entity, which holds her money in deposit. Ordinarily, owner of a thing is entitled to make use of it in any way he/she desires, unless the law otherwise provides for."

It further stated that the submission of the Counsel for the Centre that subject Rule of the said Notification comes in the way of premature encashment of deposits, is bit difficult to countenance.

"It is not a Statute/Act. It is only in the nature of subordinate legislation which needs to be interpreted with a bit leniency, such leniency availing from its very text. It does not begin with negative phraseology, such as “No premature encashment/withdrawal of deposit is permitted”. The Rule 8(d) specifically provides for premature encashment. However, the thrust of the rule is the rate of interest payable on the deposit, when it is withdrawn after four years, but before maturity. Such a rule, with the text reproduced above, cannot be treated as putting a complete embargo against premature withdrawal. This being said, this Court does not express any opinion as to payment of interest, when premature withdrawal is done", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Priyadarsini Das vs. Union of India & Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner- M/s. Parsuram Panda, Advocate P.K. Satapathy, Advocate S. Pati

Respondent- DSGI P.K. Parhi, CGC D. Golchhayat

Click here to read/ download Order