TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) The petitioner no.1 is a retired Basic Shiksha Adhikari and is about 75 years of age. The petitioner is also a spinster. It is alleged that petitioner no.1 is a paraplegic patient having a permanent disability of 70%. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 is unable to sign or speak since 4th of November, 2015. The petitioner no.1 has a pension account in Punjab National Bank. In September, 2014, a joint account was opened in the same Bank in the name of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 and a sum of Rs. 22.40 lakhs was transferred from the pension account to this joint account. A sum of Rs. 18 lakhs was withdrawn immediately thereafter by the husband of petitioner no.2 and, on a regular basis, Rs. 10, 000/- to 15,000/- was being withdrawn from the said account. When the funds started depleting from this joint account, the present writ petition was filed contending that the petitioner no.2 is a relative of petitioner no.1 and is taking care of petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 contended that in order to look after petitioner no.1, she required money and since the petitioner no.1 is unable to speak or sign, it was not possible to withdraw any amount from petitioner no.1's pension account. Consequently, a prayer was made that a writ of mandamus should be issued to the respondent-Bank to transfer the money from the pension account of petitioner no. 1 to the joint account of petitioners no.1 and 2 so that petitioner no.2 could withdraw the amount and use that money for maintaining petitioner no. 1 for fooding, medication, etc.
(2.) This Court issued notices and, on the basis of the affidavits filed, found that petitioner no.1 has no relatives or heirs. There is no nomination in favour of any person in her pension papers nor there is any nominee in her pension account with the Bank.
(3.) In so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, at one place, she claims to be the next best friend of petitioner no. 1 and at another place, she states that she is a relative and still at another place, she alleges that she is the niece of petitioner no.1. It is also alleged that petitioner no.1 performed the Kanyadaan when petitioner no.2 got married with Sandeep. It is also alleged that the daughter of petitioner no.2 was adopted by sister of petitioner no.1. The fact remains that there is no concrete evidence that petitioner no. 2 or her husband are in any manner blood related to petitioner no.1. However, the fact remains that petitioner no.2 and her husband are actually looking after the petitioner no.1 and are providing day to day sustenance to her.;