PARUKUTTY AMMA Vs. R. SUMANGI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N . Gopalakrishnan Nair, a retiree from Indian Army died on 25.11.1999. Immediately thereafter, two ladies raked up rival claims regarding the status of wife of the deceased. Each claimed, in exclusion of the other, that she is entitled to the retirement benefits of deceased N. Gopalakrishnan Nair. As to who is the legally wedded wife entitled to the benefits is the core issue. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has gone to the Family Court with a suit for declaration of status and other consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed by the trial court in her favour. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the 1st defendant has come up in appeal.

(2.) 1st respondent claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased N. Gopalakrishnan Nair. Admittedly the parties are Hindus. He married the 1st respondent on 14.06.1958 according to the custom prevailing in the community. Four issues were born in the wedlock. During the subsistence of the marriage, the deceased Gopalakrishnan Nair developed illicit intimacy with the appellant and a female child was born to them. 1st respondent had filed M.C. No. 238 of 1999 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (in short, "Cr.P.C.") during the life time of N. Gopalakrishnan Nair. Subsequent to the death of her husband, she approached the 2nd respondent for receiving family pension. Then she knew that the deceased had nominated the appellant as the beneficiary for pension. According to the 1st respondent, the appellant has no right to claim any benefit accrued on the death of N. Gopalakrishnan Nair. The 2nd respondent took a stand that the establishment is unable to recognize the 1st respondent's claim as the service records showed the name of the appellant as wife of the deceased. Therefore, the 1st respondent approached the court below for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) 2nd respondent contended that the Department is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. Facts asserted in the plaint that deceased N. Gopalakrishnan Nair, former Captain of the Indian Army died on 25.11.1999 is correct. He was enrolled in the Army on 24.09.1956. His papers were transferred to the Pension Establishment Department with effect from 01.01.1998 after his service of 31 years, eight months and seven days. As per the service records available, he had married the appellant on 23.01.1968. He nominated the appellant to receive all benefits in the event of his death. Two female children named Beeju and Preetha were born to them on 30.08.1970 and 30.05.1971 respectively. Since the records show the appellant as wife of the deceased, the Department notified the family pension in favour of the appellant. The pensioner was reported to have died on 25.09.1995. On receipt of the death intimation from the appellant, Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Thiruvananthapuram was requested to disburse the family pension to the appellant. A petition was received from the 1st respondent intimating the death of the pensioner and mentioning her marriage with the deceased in 1958. However, the pensioner never intimated to the Department about the marriage with the 1st respondent during his life time. The Department properly sanctioned the family pension to the appellant since the pensioner himself had nominated her as the legal heir. The suit against the 2nd respondent is not maintainable.