K SURAMMA Vs. K RAMAYYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT filed the suit in OS. No. 44/1996 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for declaration of her status as the wife of Ramulu (the deceased) and for a consequential injunction restraining 1st respondent from receiving amounts from the office of 4th respondent, payable consequent on the death of the deceased and mandatory injunction directing 4th respondent to pay 1 /3rd amount from the terminal benefits payable on the death of the deceased, alleging that though she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and begot respondents 2 and 3 out of the wedlock, 1st respondent claiming to be the wife of the deceased, who was an employee in the office of 4th respondent is making efforts to withdraw the amounts due and payable consequent on the death of the deceased. 1st respondent filed her written statement alleging that the deceased, after divorcing the appellant married and nominated her as the recipient of his death benefits and so she, but not the appellant, is entitled to receive all the amount due consequent on the death of the deceased. 2nd respondent filed a written statement supporting the appellant while 3rd respondent adopted the written statement of the 1st respondent, 4th respondent filed a written statement alleging that after the death of the deceased as 1st respondent produced a legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer showing her as the wife and legal heir of the deceased and since the deceased nominated the 1st respondent as the recipient of the amount under Andhra Pradesh Group Life Insurance, (APGLI) all the amounts due consequent on his death were paid to the 1st respondent.

(2.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the Court below framed six issues and. one additional issue for trial. In support of her case, appellant examined herself as P. W. 1 and two others as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked Exs. A-l to A-3. 1st respondent examined herself as D. W. 1,3rd respondent examined himself as D. W. 2. The mother of the deceased was examined as D. W. 3. D. W. 4 is examined to speak out the divorce between the appellant and the deceased. D. W. 5 is the vendor of his house to respondents 1 and 2, with the amount received from APGLI. Exs. B-l to B-5 were marked on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. 2nd respondent examined himself as D. W. 6. This is all the oral and documentary evidence on record.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, held on additional issue that he has jurisdiction to try the suit and on issue No. 3 that marriage between the deceased and 1st respondent is not valid as it is hit by Section 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act because husband of 1st respondent is still alive and since there is no divorce between him and 1st respondent. On issues 1 and 2 it held that as appellant was divorced by the deceased, appellant is not entitled to the declaration sought and on issues 4 and 5 that appellant is not entitled to perpetual and mandatory injunctions sought, and on the basis of finding on those issues on issue No. 6, dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this appeal.