Smt K N Susheelamma vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1870 Kant

                            1
                                        MFA No.3292 of 2016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
                        PRESENT
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                           AND
     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3292 OF 2016 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. K.N.SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.L.RAMALINGAIAH,
AGED 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1206, KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
CHAMARAJ MOHALLA, MYSURU-570005.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MARUTHI PRASAD S.A., ADV.)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-570001.

2.     EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE,
       ORGANIZATION-SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
       BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,
       109/128, II STAGE, GAYATHRIPURAM,
       MYSURU-570001.

       REP. BY ITS ASST. COMMISSIONER
       PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE.

3.     SMT. MANGALA GOWRI
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.73, 9TH CROSS,
       LOKANAYAKA NAGAR, MYSURU-570016.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                               2
                                          MFA No.3292 of 2016




(BY SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1;
    SMT. VANITHA K.R., ADV. FOR R2;
    NOTICE R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.09.2015, PASSED IN O.S. NO.12/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FILED U/O VII RULES 1 R/W SEC.26 OF CPC FOR
DECLARATION.


     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
10.03.2023,    COMING    ON       FOR   PRONOUNCEMENT      OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family

Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated

22.09.2015 passed in O.S.No.12/2012 by the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Mysore, by which the suit filed by the

plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to

receive the pensionary benefits of the deceased B.L.

Ramalingaiah has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that

the appellant is the legally wedded wife of deceased

B.L. Ramalingaiah and the marriage was solemnized in the

MFA No.3292 of 2016

year 1975. It is averred that being the wife of late B.L.

Ramalingaiah she had initiated proceedings for

maintenance. This Court in MFA.No.2602/1991 has

directed late B.L. Ramalingaiah to pay Rs.600/- per month

as maintenance to the appellant/wife.

3. It is further averred that the appellant has filed

O.S.No.12/2004 against the B.L. Ramalingaiah and others

to recover the arrears of maintenance. The said suit came

to be decreed. It is pleaded that defendant No.3 Smt.

Mangala Gowri claiming to be the wife of the deceased

B.L. Ramalingaiah has filed W.P.No.9137/2009 seeking

prayer to quash the communication dated 5.2.2009 issued

by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The

learned Single Judge of this Court has held that petitioner

therein cannot be treated as a legally wedded

wife of the deceased B.L.Ramalingaiah and that the

petitioner/respondent No.3 is not entitled for family

pension.

MFA No.3292 of 2016

4. The respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance before

the trial Court and respondent No.1 remained absent and

was placed exparte. The contesting respondents have

filed written statement denying the averments of the

plaint. It is averred that the appellant is not legally

wedded wife of the deceased B.L. Ramalingaiah, the

marriage between B.L. Ramalingaiah and the appellant has

been dissolved by an order dated 24.1.1992 in MFA

No.2602/1991 by this Court and sought for dismissal of

the suit.

5. The Family Court recorded evidence. The appellant

examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The

respondents have not adduced any evidence. The Family

Court by judgment and decree dated 22.09.2015

dismissed the suit. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the

present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant

and respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that plaintiff was legally wedded wife of late

MFA No.3292 of 2016

B.L. Ramalingaiah. It is further submitted that this Court

in MFA No.2602/1991 has directed late B.L. Ramalingaiah

to pay monthly alimony of Rs.600/- to the appellant. The

said B.L. Ramalingaiah failed to pay the said amount,

hence O.S.No.12/2004 has been filed by the appellant

herein to recover the arrears of maintenance, the said suit

has been decreed holding that the appellant is entitled to

1/3rd share in Item Nos.3 and 7 of the suit schedule

property.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

justifies the judgment and decree and seeks to dismiss the

appeal.

8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf

of the appellant and respondent and perused the material

on record.

9. It is admitted that the marriage between the

appellant and late B.L. Ramalingaiah has been dissolved

by order dated 24.02.1992 in MFA No.2602/1991. It is

also admitted that the appellant has filed O.S.No.12/2004

MFA No.3292 of 2016

against the deceased B.L. Ramalingaiah and the said suit

has been decreed by the trial Court holding that the

appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share in Item Nos.3 and 7 of

the suit schedule properties. It is further admitted that

B.L. Ramalingaiah died on 17.08.2004.

10. On careful examination of evidence on record it is

evident that appellant cannot be called as legally wedded

wife of late B.L. Ramalingaiah. Hence any claim relating

to pensionary benefits of deceased B.L. Ramalingaiah by

the appellant is required to be rejected. The retiral

benefits of late B.L. Ramalingaiah has to be disbursed only

to the legally wedded wife and thus appellant is not

entitled for any benefits. It is borne out of the record that

children of respondent No.3 have received the retiral

benefits of late B.L.Ramalingaiah. Hence, there is no

merit in the claim made by the appellant.

11. The Family Court on meticulous appreciation of the

evidence on record has recorded a finding that the

appellant is not the legally wedded wife of late B.L.

MFA No.3292 of 2016

Ramalingaiah and not entitled for any benefits. The said

finding does not suffer from any infirmity warranting

interference by this Court in the present appeal.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

merit in this appeal. The same fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NG CT: DMN