SOUDAMINI P Vs. K V KUNHATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short, in fact, a four line order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Payyannur, on an application moved for interim directions/orders in an appeal preferred from a decree granting a declaratory relief to the plaintiff, regarding her entitlement to claim pension as the widow of a retired Army Personnel, has given rise to serious questions over the jurisdiction of the Civil Court vis-a-vis the entertainability of a suit before a Civil Court to claim pensionary benefits as the legal heir of a military personnel. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Payyannur on the application moved by the 1st respondent in A.S.No.52/2010, which arose from the decree passed in O.S. No. 133/06 by the learned Munsiff, Payyannur. That suit was instituted by the 1st respondent in the aforesaid appeal, as the plaintiff. Shorn off all paraphernalia covering the pleadings of the parties involved in the lis, suffice to state, the suit was laid by the aforesaid respondent claiming herself to be the widow of late Kunhiraman, a retired Army Personnel. The second defendant in the suit, one Kunhathi, who claimed to be the legally wedded wife of late Kunhiraman, after his demise, has been recognised as his widow entitled to claim his pensionary benefits, was the backdrop which led to the suit by the plaintiff to seek a declaratory relief that she is the legally wedded wife of late Kunhiraman, and she alone is entitled to claim his pensionary benefits. In such suit, apart from the 2nd defendant Kunhathi, the Treasury Officer and the Pensioning Authority of the Army and some others were also arrayed as co-defendants.

(2.) On the materials placed in the suit, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that at a time when the marital relationship of late Kunhiraman subsisted with Kunhathi, he developed an affinity towards the plaintiff and maintained a relationship with her recognising and acknowledging her also as his wife. Though the second defendant was proved to be legally wedded to Kunhiraman and thus entitled to the status of his widow, the learned Munsiff recognised the claim of the plaintiff as well as a person entitled to pensionary benefits of late Kunhiraman taking a view that Kunhiraman was survived by more than one widow. For disposal of this Original Petition with the question of jurisdiction arising for consideration, the reasonings of the learned Munsiff to hold so or its correctness, do not call for critical scrutiny. Suffice to state that the learned Munsiff on the aforesaid opinion expressed, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff recognising her entitlement to collect half of the pensionary benefits of late Kunhiraman. Learned Munsiff granted a decree to the plaintiff directing the Pensioning Authority of the Defence services to consider apportionment of the family pension of deceased Kunhiraman between the plaintiff and the second defendant, with a further direction that a decision thereof should be taken within one month from the date of such judgment.

(3.) The second defendant assailed that decree filing the aforesaid appeal. In such appeal, the plaintiff moved cross-objections to the extent the decree was not granted in terms of the suit. She also moved an application to restrain the 1st defendant, Treasury Officer, from disbursing the pension, which has been continuously collected by the appellant viz., Kunhathi.