GNANA JYOTHI Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Heard Mr. Swati Guda, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader, Services-I; Mr. K. Swarna Seshu and Mr. S. Harinatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Late Yandava Jayanandam, who worked as Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, Itchapuram and retired from service in the month of July, 2011. The petitioner and late Jayanandam got married as per Christian Customs and rights on 7/6/1990. Out of legal wedlock, they blessed a daughter by name Sanjana on 4/5/1994. Subsequently the late Jayanandam developed illicit intimacy with 4threspondent and took her to his house and left the conjugal society of the petitioner in the year 2006. The marriage between the petitioner and late Jayanandam subsisted till his death as the marriage was not dissolved at any point of time. The husband of the petitioner was died on 20/6/2016, leaving behind him, the petitioner and her daughter Sanjana as his Class-I legal heirs, who are legally entitled for all the pensionery benefits of the deceased husband. The petitioner's daughter filed F.C.M.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Family Judge-cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram against her father Late Jayanandam and the Family Court also directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,500.00 per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner's daughter and also holding that the petitioner and Sanjana are the wife and daughter of the Late Jayanandam. Even in the recovery petitioner claiming arrears of the maintenance, the said Jayanandam paid the amounts to the daughter of the petitioner and at that stage unfortunately he died suddenly. After death of said Jayanandam, the 4threspondent applied for Family Member Certificate before the Tahsildar, who rejected the same and questioning her relationship with deceased. But the respondents sanctioned the family pension to the 4th respondent by keeping the petitioner aside, inspite of receiving the legal notice also, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.