LALIANI Vs. LALHLIAPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the respondent. The Appellant Smt. Lalliani is the first wife of deceased Lalbiaktluanga who died on 27-8-92. The Respondent is the second wife of the said deceased Lalbiaktluanga. While serving in Madras Regiment late Lalbiaktluanga had nominated the Appellant to receive all death benefits in the event of his death. The controversy between the two wives left by him is directly related to the service benefits of late Lalbiaktluanga. Late Lalbiaktluanga and the Appellant Lalliani were married in 1982. They have three children. Two are sons and one is a daughter. At the moment the elder boy is living with the step mother, the second wife of Lalbiaktluanga. The second son and the girl are with the Appellant. The second wife Smt. Lalhliapi also has a daughter out of her union with late Lalbiaktluanga. The wives are now looking after two children each.

(2.) Some time in 1985 deceased Lalbiaktluanga and the Appellant were separated. Again they came back together in 1987. However, this also did not last long. Marriage was broken in 1988. Thereafter said Lalbiaktluanga and the Respondent were married on 26-1-1990. The Respondent (second wife) made an application in the Court below to issue heirship certificate to receive the family pension benefit of late Lalbiaktluanga. The Court held that the Respondent being "the legal and present wife" would get the benefit of the family pension and that the Appellant being "an ex wife only has no right to claim the benefit of pension." The said order was issued on 1-11-1993 in HC No. 237/93. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl. The said appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.21/1993(21 of 1993). After hearing the parties the said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 19-9-1994. The Appellate Court also upheld the finding of the Subordinate court that the Respondent is the legal and rightful claimant and as such she should be given monthly pension benefit of her late husband. The said appellate order was passed in the face of its finding recorded as follows:-

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that whereas there-is a clear finding that the Record Officer had duly communicated to the Court [luring the pendency of the case that the Appellant was duly nominated to receive the pension benefits of deceased Lalbiaktluanga, the lower Appellate Court had wrongly held that the Respondent would be entitled to such benefits.