JUDGMENT V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. The petitioner’s husband died on 10.09.2014 at Koraiyar, Needamangalam, while taking bath. It appears that the petitioner was away and hence, she had no knowledge of the death. The body of her husband was found by the jurisdictional police on 12.09.2014 and complaint in Criminal No. 272 of 2014 was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Since it remained as an unidentified body, the post mortem was performed and the jurisdictional police buried the body at Cherankulam Village. The petitioner, who had gone for assisting her daughter for her delivery to Thanjavur, returned only on 10.09.2014 to Needamangalam to find her husband untraceable. On 15.09.2014, she came to know through a newspaper report about the unidentified body and she went and made enquiries. From the dress that the deceased was wearing, the petitioner identified the deceased to be her husband and made a request for the exhumation of the body, so that the body could be buried as per the religious rites of the Roman Catholics. But, since there is no precedence and the jurisdiction differs, the respondents could not help the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to exhume the body of her husband for the purpose of burying it is as per their religious rites. 3. Heard Mr. P.T. Perumal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 4. Once there is no dispute about the identity of the deceased person and once there is no dispute about the relationship between the decease and the person claiming the body of the deceased, there should be no difficulty in the respondents allowing the prayer of the petitioner. The right of a person to be given a decent burial or cremation according to the religious beliefs that he professed, when he was alive, has been recognized as part and parcel of the Fundamental Right under Article 21. Though Article 21 uses only the expression right to life and livelihood, the right does not terminate upon the death of a person. Though Article 21 uses only the expression right to life and livelihood, the right does not terminate upon the death of a person. In S. Sethu Raja vs. Chief Secretary, 2007 (5) MLJ 404 , I had an occasion to consider the right of a deceased person to have his body cremated or buried according to the religious beliefs that he professed during his life time. Therefore, the respondents are obliged to consider the request of the petitioner, if there is no dispute with regard to the relationship and the identity of the person. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to have the body of her husband exhumed and taken to her native place for the burial of the body as per the religious rites of the Roman Catholics, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the identity of the deceased is established and if the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased is also established. No costs.