The Court held that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. (AI image)The Madras High Court has held that a writ court cannot be converted into an execution court or a family court for resolving disputes between spouses or for enforcing maintenance orders already passed by competent courts.Justice Mumminei Sudheer Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation authorities not to release pensionary and terminal benefits payable to her husband, observing that the grievance raised by her was essentially against her husband and not against the authorities.Wife Sought Restraint On Release Of Husband's Retirement BenefitsThe petitioner claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the third respondent. According to her, the marital relationship between them had become strained, resulting in several proceedings before family and civil courts.It was submitted on her behalf that orders granting maintenance had already been passed in her favour against her husband. However, despite such orders, the husband failed to comply with them.In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust and the Transport Corporation authorities not to disburse pensionary and other service benefits payable to her husband.High Court Says Proper Remedy Is To Execute Maintenance OrdersAfter considering the submissions and the materials placed on record, the Court held that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.Justice Mumminei Sudheer Kumar observed that the High Court could not be converted into an execution court or a family court for adjudicating disputes between husband and wife.The Court observed:"This Court cannot be converted as an Execution Court or a Family Court for resolving the disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent, who are wife and husband."The Court noted that if the petitioner had already succeeded in maintenance proceedings, it was open to her to initiate appropriate execution proceedings for enforcement of those orders.The Court further held that:"If at all the petitioner succeeded in the maintenance case against the third respondent, it is for her to initiate execution proceedings or otherwise for execution of the said orders."According to the Court, under no circumstances could the writ petition be maintained either for executing maintenance orders or for resolving matrimonial disputes between the parties.No Legal or Constitutional Right Violated by AuthoritiesThe Court also found that no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner had been infringed by the Transport Corporation authorities.Justice Sudheer Kumar observed that the entire grievance of the petitioner was directed only against her husband and not against respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the writ petition itself was not maintainable.Holding that the High Court could not be invoked as a substitute for execution proceedings and that no violation of any legal or constitutional right by the authorities had been demonstrated, the Court dismissed the writ petition. However, it clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to agitate her rights and all contentions raised in the writ petition before the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceedings.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)