M.S.MANJULA Vs. CHANDRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, Smt.G.Chandramma and her two minor children namely, C.R.Bhargavi and C.R.Samrudh, respondents herein, filed O.S.No.141/2012 seeking a declaration that Chandramma was the legally wedded wife of T.Ramalingaiah and Bhargavi and Samrudh were the children born out of their wedlock. They sought for a further declaration that Sagar, the 2nd defendant/ 2nd appellant herein was not the son of late T.Ramalingaiah. They also sought for a decree of injunction to restrain M.S.Manjula and Sagar (defendants) from claiming any monetary benefits arising from their relation as wife and son of T.Ramalingaiah.

(2.) It was the case of the plaintiffs/respondents herein that T.Ramalingaiah had married Chandramma on 10.11.1997, after he got his earlier marriage on 24.04.1992 with M.S.Manjula dissolved by a decree of divorce which was granted in M.C.No.17/1993 and pursuant to their marriage, respondents 2 and 3 herein were born on 12.02.1999 and 21.12.2001. It was their case that on 08.11.2010, T.Ramalingaiah passed away and as a consequence, they raised a claim for service benefits accrued on account of his death. They stated that since there was a claim set up in a proceeding initiated for grant of Succession Certificate in P & SC No.184/2011, they were constrained to file the suit.

(3.) It was their case that T.Ramalingaiah had earlier married the 1st defendant/1st appellant herein on 24.04.1992 and T.Ramalingaiah had initiated proceedings for dissolution of marriage in M.C.No.17/1993 and in those proceedings, he had categorically stated that he had never lived with the 1st appellant and their marriage itself had not been consummated. It was stated that this evidence of T.Ramalingaiah in those proceedings had remained unchallenged and was accepted by the Family Court in M.C.No.17/1993 and a decree was granted. It was stated that since T.Ramalingaiah had himself categorically stated that his marriage with the 1st appellant had not been consummated, the question of the 2nd appellant being the son would not arise and it was, therefore, necessary that a decree be granted to that effect.