Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The question that arises for consideration in the Original Petition is whether the wife of a defaulter is dis¬entitled to get a telephone sanctioned or to get refund of an OYT deposit made in her name unless and until the arrears due from her husband in respect of another connection in his name are paid up. 2. The petitioner applied for a telephone in the year 1998 on deposit of Rs. 15,000/- as advance for connection in the OYT General category. Ext. P1 is the relevant demand note. On finding that subsequent applicants were given connection and there was little chance of granting connection to the petitioner the department was moved for a refund of the deposit. In Ext. P4 the department took the stand that the husband of the applicant was a subscriber of Telephone No. Vaikom 335356 in respect of which there was huge arrears and as such the request for cancellation of registration and refund of deposit to the petitioner can be considered only after payment of all outstanding dues to the department in respect of her husband's telephone which had been disconnected. 3. I have heard both sides. The learned Standing Council for the respondents could not bring to my notice any provision of law by which a wife can be penalised for the arrears or default committed by her husband in respect of an entirely different telephone connection. 4. A more or less similar question came up for consideration of this Court in Bulkies v. Union of India (2000 (2) KLT 252 = 2000 (1) KLJ 750). That was a case where the department proceeded to disconnect an existing telephone in the name of a wife on the ground of default of her husband. This court found that the department has no such right and that husband's default cannot be connected with the rights of the wife in the matter of continuing a telephone connection. According to me, the reasoning is sound and the same principle can be invoked here also. A wife and husband, no doubt, form members of one and the same family; but that does not mean that by their union the individual rights guaranteed to them under the constitution stand forfeited for affected. The telephone connections in question are not joint; nor in the name of a firm of which the spouses are partners. A wife and husband, no doubt, form members of one and the same family; but that does not mean that by their union the individual rights guaranteed to them under the constitution stand forfeited for affected. The telephone connections in question are not joint; nor in the name of a firm of which the spouses are partners. There is no law which prohibits a wife and husband from owning separate and independent telephone connections even when they share the same roof. Their rights and liabilities in respect of individual telephone connections remain unaffected by their marital tie. 5. In the instant case, for want of timely connection the petitioner is no more interested in getting a telephone connection and all that she wants now is a refund of the amount paid by her as deposit. The only reason given for denying the relief in Ext. P4 is dues in respect of her husband's telephone, which is totally unsustainable. In the circumstances, the Original Petition is allowed. There will be a writ of mandamus against the respondents to refund the eligible amounts due by way of refund of the OYT deposit made by the petitioner on 3.9.1998 pursuant to Ext. P1 demand note as per rules. This will be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.