MEKKARA VEETTIL PARU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the widow of M.K. Krishnan Nambiar who died on 24.12.2008. The said Krishnan Nambiar retired as a Government employee. The petitioner's grievance in this Writ Petition is that although the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Krishnan Nambiar, family pension is not being paid to the petitioner as the widow of the Government employee. Apparently this is because the said Krishnan Nambiar has nominated the 5th respondent for the purpose of receiving family pension in his pension papers. The petitioner's contention is that as early as on 17.12.1964, by Ext.P5 judgment, the Munsiff's-Court, Payyannur, accepted the fact that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the said Krishnan Nambiar, in a suit, O.S. No. 158/1962, filed by Krishnan Nambiar to declare that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of Krishnan Nambiar. It is pointed out that the said judgment was taken in appeal before the District Court as A.S. No. 150/1965 and before this Court as S.A. No. 775/1966 and, by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court upheld the findings in Ext.P5. That being so, Krishnan Nambiar being a Hindu, cannot have another legally wedded wife. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) The 5th respondent has filed counter affidavit disputing the contentions of the petitioner. According to her, she is the legally wedded wife of Krishnan Nambiar. As regards Exts.P5 and P6, she would contend that they are not binding on either the Government or the 5th respondent since they were not parties therein. According to the 5th respondent, the said Krishnan Nambiar had originally married one A.P. Thankalakshmi Amma, in which marriage, she had one male child and after her death, Krishnan Nambiar married the 5th respondent and begot children. It is pointed out that the son in the first wife and the 5th respondent and her children were living together along with the said Krishnan Nambiar, which is evidenced by Exts.R5(a), R5(b) and R5(c) documents. The further contention of the 5th respondent is that as evidenced from Ext.R5(c) pension papers, the said Krishnan Nambiar himself had nominated the 5th respondent for receipt of family pension. In the above circumstances, according to the 5th respondent, notwithstanding Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, the 5th respondent is entitled to receive family pension and not the petitioner.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.