Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad has directed the Post Bank to allow premature encashment of fixed deposits to meet the expenses of a marriage in the depositor’s family. Rejecting the bank’s contention that no such withdrawal was permissible under Rule 8(d) of the National Savings Time Deposit Scheme, 2019, the Court held that marriage is recognized in Hindu Law as a traditional necessity and that a person cannot be denied her own wealth for such purpose merely because of a restrictive rule. The Bench quashed the refusal and ordered release within two weeks.

The petitioner approached the High Court of Orissa under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the refusal of the Post Bank authorities to permit premature encashment of her fixed deposits. The grievance raised was that despite urgent financial need for a marriage in the family, the bank denied her request citing restrictions under the National Savings Time Deposit Scheme, 2019.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Uniform Registration of Sikh Marriages | States and UTs Directed to Frame Rules Under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act Within Four Months

The petitioner, through counsel, relied on amended Rule 8(d) of the Scheme as notified on 7 November 2023. It was argued that premature encashment was not completely barred under the provision and, therefore, should be allowed. The necessity for withdrawal was emphasized as arising from marriage, which was presented as a legitimate ground.

On behalf of the opposite parties, it was contended that the language of Rule 8(d) was unambiguous and permitted withdrawal only after completion of four years in a five-year deposit. Reference was also made to an order dated 14 November 2023, which was structured in line with the notification, to support the position that the petitioner’s request could not be accepted.

The Court examined the text of Rule 8(d), the submissions of both sides, and the impugned communication dated 5 August 2025, which had denied the premature withdrawal

The Court recorded that under Hindu law, “three traditional necessities, namely, aapaatkaale, vyaahaarike & kutumbaarthe” were recognized in Hanoomanpersaud Pandey vs Mussamat Babooee, 6 MIA 393. Therefore, it could not be denied that the petitioner had a pressing need for her funds.

The Court 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.”

The judgment recorded that the submission of the opposite parties, that Rule 8(d) prohibited premature withdrawal before four years, was difficult to accept. The Rule stated: “8.(d) Where a deposit in a five-year account is withdrawn prematurely after four years from the date of opening of account, interest shall be payable at the rate applicable to Post Office Savings Account.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court Upholds Maintenance for Wife and Daughter, Says Unfair to Generalise Educated Wives as ‘Idle’ to Burden Husbands

Justice Shripad noted, “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.” The Court added that the Rule did not use prohibitive phraseology such as “No premature encashment/withdrawal of deposit is permitted.” Instead, Rule 8(d) expressly contemplated premature withdrawal and dealt with the applicable interest rate.

The Court directed: “In the above circumstances, petition is allowed; impugned letter No.12/2025 dated 05.08.2025 is quashed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to OP Nos.2 to 4 to permit the petitioner to encash/withdraw the deposits in question within two weeks, so that the imminent marriage ceremony is performed and a new family is set up as a productive unit of society. Delay would carry interest at the rate of 1% per mensem personally payable by the OPs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: M/s. Parsuram Panda, P.K. Satapathy & S. Pati, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI with Mr. D. Golchhayat, CGC

Case Title: Priyadarsini Das v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 18858 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad