Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is.... “.....to issue a writ, order, direction and in particular a writ of mandamus as: (a) directing the first respondent to pay the petitioners a fair and just amount of compensation for the death of Mr.Ponnusamy, (b) Directing the first respondent to give any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may consider fit and proper: and (c) Ordering cost of this petition”. .2. The first petitioner is the widow, who has filed the writ petition on behalf of herself and her minor daughter, the second petitioner. Her husband was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14. 1990. It is alleged that he died under suspicious circumstances, while he was in Sub-Jail, Namakkal on 20.4.1990. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the first petitioner’s husband was .evading the process of the court in execution proceedings taken by the petitioner for maintenance. It is stated that the death took place due to the negligence and default of the prison officials concerned It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was married to one Ponnusamy during 1977 and a daughter was born in 1978. When she was in the advance stage of pregnancy, it is alleged that she was chased out of the matrimonial home of the deceased husband. Though a trial was made to settle the matter, the petitioner initiated criminal proceedings against the deceased husband for bigamy and in turn, he filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In that petition, the first petitioner seems to have filed an application for interim maintenance and when he failed to appear before Court, the matter was dismissed for default. At this stage, in 1987, the first petitioner filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.3 of 1987 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Namakkal and after contest, an order was passed in favour of the first petitioner, fixing maintenance at Rs.300 per month to the first petitioner and at Rs. 100 for the daughter. When, the application was taken for executing the order on 13. 1989, it seems the first petitioner’s husband refused to receive the notice and he was evading arrest. 100 for the daughter. When, the application was taken for executing the order on 13. 1989, it seems the first petitioner’s husband refused to receive the notice and he was evading arrest. Ultimately he filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court and obtained a stay, on condition that he should deposit half of the arrears When that condition was not complied with, his revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 29. 1989. The first petitioner seems to have filed a Crl.R.C.No.128 of 1989 before this Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount. When the husband of the first petitioner was not appearing before the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, a non-bailable warrant was issued for arrest .The efforts made by the first petitioner to get her husband arrested were not successful. So the first petitioner approached this Court in Crl.M.P.No.2807 of 1990 for directing the first respondent to execute the said warrant. An order was passed by this Court in the Criminal Side on 13. 1990 fixing a time limit. Ultimately, the first petitioner’s husband was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal on 14. 1990. Thereupon, he was remanded to the Judicial Custody and he was kept in Sub-Jail Namakkal. At this point, the first petitioner received a message that her husband’s body was taken from a well near the Sub-Jail, Namakkal. The background of the death of the first petitioner’s husband was not known. 3. It is alleged in the affidavit that the atmosphere in the Sub-Jail was very much horrible to continue the stay in the Sub-Jail and there was no proper space to allow the prisoners to move freely. It is stated in the affidavit these factors, led to her husband’s frustration and which made him to jump into the well and it is due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the Jail Administration. 4. It is stated that the first petitioner’s daughter, who is the second petitioner herein, is studying in the IX Standard and the negligence on the part of the Jail Administration in maintaining the Sub-Jail has resulted in the death of the first petitioner’s husband. It is further alleged that the Jail Administration failed to maintain the well with proper fencing and this resulted in the death of the first petitioner’s husband. It is further alleged that the Jail Administration failed to maintain the well with proper fencing and this resulted in the death of the first petitioner’s husband. It is also stated that the Sub-Jail has no sufficient space to allow the prisoners to have physical movement and there is no way to have little walk and physical exercise, and this has made her husband to jump into the well. It is stated that the State is responsible for the torts and all acts of its employees and even in a case where negligence is not proved, this court should order on humanitarian grounds some compensation, which is fair and just as interim relief. It is stated in the affidavit that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Samali. v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (1990)1 S.C.C: 422 and A.S.Mittal v. State of U.P., (1989)3 S.C.C. 223 , are relied upon. 5. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 110. 1990. .6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts. It is stated in the counter that the first petitioner’s husband, one Ponnusamy, was remanded to Sub-Jail, Namakkal under Sec.128 Crl.P.C by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal in Crime No. 1444 of 1989 of Velagoundanpatty Police Station and admitted in the Sub-Jail on 14. 1990. It is stated in the counter that there were 24 male prisoners in the Sub-Jail, Namakkal on 20.4.1990 and as per rules, the Sub Jail was unlocked and all the prisoners were taken out from their cells and marched to the backyard where there is a well to attend to morning calls and also to take bath. It is stated in the counter that the prisoners were guarded by two Grade II Warders and the Sub-Jail Superintendent. It is stated that the upper portion of the well is covered with wire mesh to prevent accidental fall of the prisoners and others into the well with a small opening for taking water from the well using bucket through pulley. It is stated that this opening also was covered by a tin-sheet whenever water is not taken from the well, which is about 70 feet deep and six feet in diameter. It is stated that this opening also was covered by a tin-sheet whenever water is not taken from the well, which is about 70 feet deep and six feet in diameter. It is also stated that there was about 18 feet depth of water at the time of the incident. It is also stated that when the prisoners were brushing their teeth and washing their faces near the water tub, the first petitioner’s husband suddenly removed the tin cover on the well and jumped.into the well. As it was unexpected, there was no time or chance to prevent his action, though there were two Warders and the Sub-Jail Superintendent, on the spot. Immediately, fire service was called upon and they rushed to the spot and an intimation was given to the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the police for arranging inquest and post-mortem. An inquest was held and the panchayatdars and the Revenue Divisional Officer were convinced that there was no foul play to be suspected over the death of the remand prisoner. It is also stated that the Government, after verifying the inquiry report sent by the third respondent has passed orders on 310. 1990 that there is no foul-play in the death of the remand prisoner. It is stated that there were no adverse remarks about the maintenance of the Jail Administration and the daily routine was carried on as per rules. It is stated clearly that the well was covered by wiremesh to avoid prisoners from falling into the well and the only hole was covered by the tin cover. It is also stated that the cell is so designed to accommodate prisoners with proper ventilation according to rules and when the well was covered with wiremesh and the tin cover, there is no need for fencing. It is stated that there are no merits in the writ petition and it has got to be dismissed. .7. I have heard Mr.R.Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in extenso and have gone through the affidavit filed by the first petitioner and also the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3. It is a case of a husband, who was kept on remand on the persistent attempts made by the first petitioner wife to get him behind the bars, had died. It is a case of a husband, who was kept on remand on the persistent attempts made by the first petitioner wife to get him behind the bars, had died. The husband died against whom the first petitioner has filed a petition for maintenance and for the default committed by the deceased husband, she, so to say, got her husband kept in custody in the Sub-Jail, Namakkal. From the facts, it is very clear that the well is covered by wiremesh and a hole is left out for taking the water, which is absolutely necessary for the prisoners. It is also very clear that the well is also covered by a tin-sheet cover and the incident had happened so suddenly and unexpectedly when the three personnel of Jail Administration, who were in charge, were helpless. Not only those three personnel, who were Warders and the Superintendent of the Sub-Jail, Namakkal were helpless; but also the other co-prisoners, who were also equally helpless, to save the first petitioner’s husband from-the fall into the well. The first petitioner’s husband chose to fall into’the well purposefully and committed suicide. To say that the respondents 1 to 3 are careless and negligent is too much to contend on the part of the first petitioner, that too in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. What happened on that day and how the first petitioner’s husband fell into the well and how the officials of the State were negligent and who was responsible for this are all matters for evidence in a properly laid suit in a civil forum. Surely, Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be taken as a substitute for granting compensation in such matters, on the peculiar facts of this case. I am of the view that such matters cannot be decided merely on affidavits and counter-affidavits. It is hot as if the petitioners has no remedy at all in law. The remedy of the petitioners is under common law, that is to say, to sue the State for tort, especially on the ground of negligence, if she is advised to do so. 8. Simply because the petitioners can get the result quickly, I do not think that the present petition should be entertained by this court. The remedy of the petitioners is under common law, that is to say, to sue the State for tort, especially on the ground of negligence, if she is advised to do so. 8. Simply because the petitioners can get the result quickly, I do not think that the present petition should be entertained by this court. If the facts of the case are looked upon, it is a case where the wife got her husband arrested and put him behind the bars and he committed suicide. The wife now comes to the Court under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for compensation on the ground that the respondents 1 to 3 were negligent. The remedy under Art.225 of the Constitution being discretionary, I do not think that the discretion should be used in favour of the petitioners on the facts of this case. So, without going into the merits of the case, giving liberty to the petitioners to move the civil forum for damages, if she is so advised, this writ petition shall stand dismissed. 9. However, as a palliative measure, I am convinced that this is a fit case, where the petitioners are to be given some compensation on humanitarian grounds. This shall "not be taken as a ground as if the negligence on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 is proved. As such, I am inclined to grant an interim relief to the petitioners. As such, the first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousands only) which I feel is quite fair and just, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts of this case. If the petitioners prefer a civil suit in a competent court of law and if the petitioners ultimately succeed, it is open to the State to recover this amount from the compensation which may be awarded to the petitioners. The first respondent is directed to pay this amount on or before 29th of February, 1992.