RUGMINI Vs. PUSHPAVATHY, PERUVALLOOR DESOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the first respondent in O.P.1068/2002 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The aforesaid original petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, seeking a decree for declaring that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Aravindakshan and she is entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased Aravindakshan. The parties are referred to as they are in the original petition.

(2.) The facts of the case can be encapsulated as follows: According to the first petitioner, she is the wife of the deceased Aravindakshan, who died on 1.10.200 The said Aravindakshan married the first petitioner on 10.1974 at Villumangalam temple, Puthenchira as per Hindu religious rites and custom. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the children born to them in the said wedlock. Aravindakshan was employed as an Overseer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical section, Parappoor village and he retired from service on 31.10.1995. Before the marriage with the first petitioner, the said Aravindakshan was in love with the first respondent. But, there was no marital relationship between Aravindakshan and the first respondent. During that time, the first respondent was the wife of one Shanmughan and Shanmughan married the first respondent in the year 196 They have a daughter, named Sheeba. While the marital relationship between the said Shanmugham with the first respondent was subsisting, she was living with the deceased Aravindakshan for quite some time. There was no legal marriage between the first respondent and the deceased Aravindakshan. The marital relationship between Shanmugham and the first respondent was not legally dissolved while she was living with Aravindakshan. Thus, according to the first petitioner, she alone is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Aravindakshan and the first respondent was not the wife of the said Aravindakshan. But, now it is learned that the first respondent is trying to get the family pension under the guise that she is the legally wedded wife of the said Aravindakshan. The first respondent has no right to receive pension, as she was not the legally wedded wife. In the above context, the first petitioner was constrained to institute the petition, seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Aravindakshan and she is eligible to get family pension.

(3.) The first respondent filed a counter statement denying all the averments in the petition stating that they are false and incorrect.