Rajeevi vs Sarasamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 13073 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                              &
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1943
                 MAT.APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2017
   AGAINST THE   JUDGMENT IN OP 317/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,
                 THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4 IN O.P.:

          RAJEEVE
          AGED 59 YEARS
          W/O. REGHUNATHAN,R/O. RAILWAY QUARTERS,REST
          HOUSE,DAVANGERE, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN-577006
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
          SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE
          SMT.NICEY A. MENON


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.P.:

    1     SARASAMMA
          AGED 53, REGHUMANDHIRAM (SREE HARI
          MANDHIRAM),VALIYAKUNNAM MURI, THEODICAL PO.,
          PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY
          TAUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689613
    2     UNION OF INDIA
          REP.BY GENERAL MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF
          RAILWAYS,RAILWAY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001
    3     THE GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
          SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, HUBLI, KARNATAKA PIN-
          580021
 Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

                            -:2:-

    4      THE DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER
           SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, MYSORE, KARNATAKA PIN-
           570001
           BY ADVS.
           SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
           SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN, SC, RAILWAYS
           SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX

     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2021,   THE   COURT   ON  23.06.2021   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

                               -:3:-

                                                              "C.R."


                         J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2021

Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J.

The marital status of the appellant and the first respondent

is in dispute in this matrimonial appeal.

2. One Mr.S.Reghunathan, an employee of South Western

Railways, died on 31/1/2009 while in service. After his death, the

appellant as well as the first respondent claiming themselves to

be his legally wedded wife came forward and raised rival claims

before the Railways, the respondents 2 to 4, for his service

benefits. Since the issue could not be settled at the official level,

the first respondent instituted original petition before the Family

Court, Thiruvalla (for short 'the court below') invoking S.7 (b), (c)

and (d) of the Family Courts, Act, 1984 to declare her marital

status as the wife of late Reghunathan and also for a permanent

prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents 2 to 4 from

disbursing the family pension and other death benefits of late Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

Reghunathan to the appellant and further to restrain the

appellant from receiving the same. The court below allowed the

original petition and granted the reliefs sought for to the first

respondent vide the impugned judgment. The said judgment is

under challenge in this matrimonial appeal.

3. We have heard Sri.Joseph George, the learned counsel

for the appellant and Sri.Jacob P.Alex, the learned counsel for the

first respondent.

4. Both the appellant and the first respondent contended

that they are the legally wedded wife of late Reghunathan and

two children each were born in their respective wedlock and, as

such, they alone are entitled to receive the family pension and

other service benefits of the deceased. According to the

appellant, the marriage between her and late Reghunathan was

solemnized at Kateelu Temple, Mangalore on 30/5/1977, two

children were born out of the said wedlock in the years 1980 and

1984 and they lived as husband and wife at the official quarters

of late Reghunathan till his death. Per contra, the first respondent

contended that the marriage between her and late Reghunathan

was solemnized on 13/7/1981 at Aranmula Parthasarathy Temple Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

as per the customs prevailing among Hindu Nair community, two

children were born out of the said wedlock in the years 1983 and

1987 and they were living as husband and wife till the death of

late Reghunathan. Both the appellant and the first respondent

disputed and denied the alleged marriage between late

Reghunathan and the other spouse. In short, both alleged that

the status of the other one is only that of a concubine. The court

below after evaluation of the evidence on record found that the

first respondent has succeeded in proving the marriage between

her and late Reghunathan at Parthasarathy temple, Aranmula on

13/7/1981 in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies

prevalent among Hindu Nair community and that there is

evidence to show that they lived together thereafter as husband

and wife. The court below further found that the appellant failed

to prove valid ceremonial marriage and mere living together by

her with late Reghunathan will not confer her the status of a wife.

Accordingly, the court below declared the status of the first

respondent as the legally wedded wife of late Reghunathan. The

consequential reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction sought

for were also granted.

Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

5. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the

impugned judgment on the ground that the court below was

unreasonable and unrealistic in the appreciation of oral as well as

documentary evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the

evidence adduced by the appellant clearly proves the

solemnization of marriage between her and late Reghunathan on

30/5/1977 and that they lived together as husband and wife since

then and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The

counsel further submitted that the law presumes in favour of

marriage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously

even if the direct evidence of marriage, if any, is unsatisfactory.

The counsel also submitted that the evidence adduced by the

first respondent is quite insufficient to rebut the legal

presumption arising from the established facts in favour of the

appellant and inasmuch as the alleged marriage between late

Reghunathan and first respondent is a subsequent one, the said

marriage is invalid as hit by S.5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955. The counsel further submitted that where a person is

already married, no presumption of second marriage arises by

reason of long cohabitation. At any rate, the court below went Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

wrong in deciding the legitimacy of the children of the appellant,

added the learned counsel. The maintainability of the original

petition for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil

Procedure was also challenged.

6. Who among the appellant and the first respondent is

the legally wedded wife of the deceased Reghunathan? - is the

crucial point arises for consideration in this appeal.

7. Both parties gave evidence to prove the factum of

their respective marriage and long cohabitation thereafter. The

evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and Exts. A1

to A17 on the side of the first respondent and oral evidence of

RWs 1 to 4 and Exts. B1 to B31 on the side of the appellant.

8. We will first consider the evidence tendered by the

first respondent. PW1 is the first respondent herself. PW2 and

PW3 are the close relatives of PW1 who attended the marriage

ceremony and witnessed the cohabitation of the first respondent

and late Reghunathan thereafter. PW4 is the mother of late

Reghunathan. Out of 17 documents produced on the side of the

first respondent, Exts. A1, A2, A3, A6, A7, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13

and A16 are important.

Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

9. PW1 gave evidence in tune with the pleadings. She

deposed that the marriage between her and late Reghunathan

was solemnized on 13/7/1981 at Parthasarathy temple, Aranmula

in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies prevalent

among Hindu Nair community and in the said wedlock two

children were born. It is not in dispute that the first respondent as

well as late Reghunathan belonged to Hindu Nair community.

PW1 also gave evidence that after the marriage, she and late

Reghunathan lived as husband and wife till the latter breathed his

last. It has come out in evidence that late Reghunathan was

working in the Engineering department of the Mysore division of

Southern Railway at the time of his marriage with the first

respondent. Thereafter, he has worked at Mangalore and

Thumpoor. At the time of death, he was working at Davanagere.

PW1 deposed that the late Reghunathan was residing at his

workplace and she along with her children were residing at her

own house constructed by her husband at her native place. She

further deposed that late Reghunathan used to come and reside

with them three to four times in a year and during Onam and

other holidays. She further deposed that occasionally she used to Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

go over to his place and reside with him at the railway quarters.

PW2 is the paternal first cousin and PW3 is the uncle of late

Reghunathan. Both of them deposed that they attended the

marriage between the first respondent and late Reghunathan

which was solemnized at Parthasarathy temple, Aranmula and,

after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and

two children were born out of their wedlock. They further deposed

that late S.Reghunathan used to come on leave every year and

reside with the first respondent and her children. PW4 is none

other than the mother of late Reghunathan. She also

categorically deposed that she witnessed the marriage between

the first respondent and his son Reghunathan which was

solemnized at Parthasarathy Temple, Arnamula and after the

marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and two

children were born out of their wedlock. She further deposed that

late Reghunathan has no other wife or children and appellant put

forward her claim without any bonafides.

10. Ext. A1 is the original marriage certificate issued by

the President and Secretary of NSS, Karayogam, Thadiyoor which

shows that the marriage between the first respondent and Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

S.Reghunathan was solemnized between 11.30 a.m and 12.15

noon on 13/7/1981 at Parthasarathy Temple, Aranmula in

accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies prevalent in

their community. Ext. A2 is the certificate of marriage issued by

the Secretary/Registrar of Hindu Marriages of Aranmula Grama

Panchayat. It shows that the marriage was registered on

17/7/1981. Ext. A3 is the identity card issued to late Reghunathan

by the South Western Railway Division. The name of the first

respondent has been stated as his wife and the daughter born to

her has been shown as their daughter therein. Exts. A6 and A7

are the original title deeds in respect of properties purchased in

the name of late Reghunathan and the first respondent. In these

documents also, the first respondent has been shown as the wife

of late Reghunathan. Ext. A9 is the certificate issued from

Thadiyoor school to the Southern Railway for giving educational

allowance to the daughter of late Reghunathan born out of

wedlock with the first respondent. Ext. A10 series are the extract

of the SSLC certificates of the children of the first respondent. In

those documents, the name of the father of the children of the

first respondent has been shown as Reghunathan Nair. Ext. A11 is Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

the passport of the son of the first respondent. In the said

document also, his parents' name have been shown as late

Reghunathan and the first respondent. Ext. A12 is the attested

copy of the identity card issued to the first respondent by the

Election Commission of India in which the name of her husband is

stated as Reghunathan. Ext. A13 is the birth certificate of the

daughter of the first respondent in which the name of the mother

is stated as the first respondent and the name of the father is

stated as Reghunathan. Ext. A16 is the copy of the Family

Composition Certificate issued by the South Western Railways,

Mysore. The first respondent and her two children have been

shown as the wife and children of late Reghunathan in the said

document.

11. We will now examine the evidence tendered by the

appellant. RW1 is the appellant herself, RW2 and RW3 are her

children and RW4 was a co-worker of late Reghunathan. Out of 31

documents produced, Ext. B3 series, B4 series, B5, B6 and B17 to

B19 alone are important.

12. RW1 gave evidence in tune with the contentions raised

in the written statement. She deposed that the marriage between Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

her and late Reghunathan was solemnized on 30/5/1977 at

Kateelu temple at Mangalore, they lived as husband and wife

thereafter and two children were born out of the said wedlock.

RW2 and RW3 supported the evidence of RW1 and deposed that

they were born out of the marital relationship between the

appellant and late Reghunathan. RW4 deposed that he worked

along with late Reghunathan for about 20 years and during the

said period, the appellant was residing along with Reghunathan

as his wife at railway quarters at Davanagere and RW2 and RW3

are the children born to the appellant out of her wedlock with late

Reghunathan.

13. Ext. B3 is a confirmation letter issued by one

Sadananda Mally of Bunt's Alias Nadavara Mathr Sangha in which

it is stated that the appellant and late Reghunathan got married

on 30/5/1977 at 11.35 a.m. at Kateelu Sri Durga Parameshwari

Devi temple, Karnataka. Ext. B4 is an affirmation letter issued by

one Vasudeva Asranna, hereditary Pradhana Archaka, Shree

Durga Parameswari Temple, Kateel. It is seen stated therein that

late Reghunathan and appellant were married on 30/5/1977 at

Kateelu Sri Durga Parameshwari Devi temple and the marriage Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

was performed by his uncle late Krishna Asranna. Exts. B5 and B6

are the transfer certificates of the children of the appellant issued

by the school authority in which the father's name has been

shown as S.Reghunatha Shetty. Ext. B17 is the pan card of late

Reghunathan.

14. An analysis of the oral and documentary evidence

adduced by both sides in support of their respective claim would

clearly show that there is concrete evidence to prove the valid

marriage between the first respondent and late Reghunathan and

long cohabitation between them pursuant to the said marriage.

On the other hand, the evidence tendered by the appellant is

weak, shabby and insufficient to prove her case.

15. The parties are Hindus. Marriage, according to the

pristine Hindu Law is sanskar - a sacrament; one of the sixteen

important sacraments essential to be taken during one's lifetime.

The traditional concept of marriage is now grossly changed and

Hindu marriage today has assumed more or less the nature of

contract for the mutual benefit of the parties concerned, duly

aided by different legal provisions and reformers. The Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 reformed radically the Hindu law of marriage. Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

The Act overrode all the rules of law of marriage whether by

virtue of any text or rule of Hindu law or any custom or usage

having the force of law in respect of all the matters dealt with in

it. The Act does not use expression 'sacramental marriage' but

speaks of a Hindu marriage solemnized in accordance with

customary rites and ceremonies of either party. Section 7 makes

it clear that a Hindu marriage has both religious as well as secular

aspects. Therefore, it is to be treated both as a sacrament and as

a contract. It is a sacrament because there is emphasis on the

performance of the customary rites and ceremonies including

Saptapadi wherever it is treated as an essential ceremony for the

completion of the marriage. It is a contract because this section

deals with the capacity of the spouses to enter into an alliance for

a marriage.

16. To prove a valid marriage under the Hindu law, the

evidence regarding the performance of marriage as required

under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be brought on

record. Section 7 speaks of solemnization of marriage with

customary rites and ceremonies. The word 'solemnized' means,

to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies with intention Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

that the parties should be considered to be married. The Apex

Court in Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1979 SC 713)

while defining the word 'solemnize' in connection with a marriage

under the Hindu Marriage Act, held inter alia, that word

'solemnize' means in connection with a marriage, 'to celebrate

the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form'. In

Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 1564), it was

held that unless the marriage is 'celebrated or performed with

due ceremonies and due form' it cannot be said to be

"solemnized". It follows, therefore, that unless the marriage is

celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it

cannot be said to be 'solemnized'. Where the factum of marriage

is disputed, essential ceremonies constituting the marriage must

be pleaded and proved to show that the marriage was valid.

17. The first respondent has clearly pleaded in the original

petition that her marriage with late Reghunathan was solemnized

in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies prevalent

among Hindu Nair community. The first respondent has also

deposed so. She was not specifically cross examined on this

aspect. PW2 to PW4 who witnessed the ceremony of marriage Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

were also examined. All of them were present at the time of the

marriage ceremony. They consistently gave evidence that they

witnessed the marriage ceremony and they have seen the first

respondent and late Reghunathan living as husband and wife till

the death of late Reghunathan. PW2 and PW3 are close relatives

of PW1 and PW4 is none other than the mother of late

Reghunathan. The evidence tendered by them are relevant under

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act.

18. As per Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the

Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person

to another, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence

of such relationship of any person who has special means of

knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact.

The person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must

be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has

special means of knowledge on the particular subject of

relationship. What the Section says is that such conduct or

outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and

may, therefore, be proved. The two illustrations appended to the

Section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the Section. Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 would clearly show that they had

special means of knowing the disputed relationship between the

first respondent and late Reghunathan. They have attended the

marriage ceremony and they have witnessed the first respondent

and late Reghunathan cohabiting together as husband and wife.

Undoubtedly, they showed their opinion as expressed by their

conduct and thus admissible under Section 50. The Supreme

Court in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004 KHC 668) has held

that when the factum of celebration of marriage is established, it

will be presumed that absence to the contrary that all the rites

and ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage have been gone

through.

19. Coming to the documentary evidence adduced on the

side of the first respondent, Ext. A2 is the certificate of marriage

issued by the competent authority. If the valid marriage is proved,

the registration of the marriage under Section 8 of the Act

becomes proof of that valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955. Ext. A2 gets corroboration from Ext. A1 which is the

certificate issued by Secretary of NSS Karayogam, Thadiyoor

stating that marriage between the first respondent and late Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

Reghunathan was solemnized between 11.30 a.m and 12.15 noon

on 13/7/1981 at Parthasarathy Temple, Aranmula. The remaining

documents produced on the side of the first respondent and

discussed in the previous paragraphs would clearly prove the

long cohabitation between the first respondent and late

Reghunathan.

20. On the other hand, there is no pleading in the written

statement filed by the appellant that her marriage with late

Reghunathan was solemnized in accordance with the customary

rites and ceremonies. In evidence also, RW1 did not state that the

marriage was in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies

prevalent in the community. Admittedly, the first respondent and

late Reghunathan belonged to the Hindu Nair community. The

appellant claims that she belongs to the Shetty community of

Karnataka state. What are the customary rites and ceremonies

prevalent among the Shetty community have also not been

pleaded or deposed. That apart, no witness who was present in

the alleged marriage ceremony was examined. The appellant

failed to lead any evidence of solemnization of marriage in

accordance with customary rites and ceremonies. The Supreme Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

Court in Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and Others (AIR 1994 SC

135) has held that without pleading any custom prevalent in the

area and performance of ceremonies, mere statement that gur

was distributed after marriage and the couple lived as husband

and wife are not sufficient to establish marriage. This Court in

Leelamma v. Radhakrishnan (2005 KHC 561) has held that

mere long cohabitation and entry in the ration card and other

documents without proving the performance of marriage

conducted as per the customary rites of parties, existence of

marriage cannot be presumed.

21. In so far as the documentary evidence adduced by the

appellant is concerned, neither Ext.B3 nor Ext.B4 is the certificate

of registration issued by any competent authority under Section

8 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Ext. B3 is only a confirmation letter

and Ext. B4 is a letter issued by the nephew of the priest who

allegedly conducted the marriage certifying the marriage.

Nowhere in Exts. B3 and B4 it is stated on what basis those

documents were issued. The authors of those documents were

also not examined. Therefore, those documents cannot be relied

on to prove the marriage.

Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

22. Even though there is no satisfactory evidence to prove

valid marriage between the appellant and late Reghunathan, the

oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant would

show that she and Reghunathan cohabited together for a pretty

long period and two children were born out of the said

relationship. Normally, long cohabitation of a man and woman for

a number of years accepted by the society as such may raise the

presumption of valid marriage, unless contrary is proved, even in

the absence of direct evidence of ceremonial marriage. However,

when there is evidence of long cohabitation of a man with two

women simultaneously with habit and repute begetting children

in both relationships, one pursuant to a ceremonial marriage and

the other one not pursuant to a ceremonial marriage, the

presumption of valid marriage must lean in favour of the former

even if the latter relationship commenced prior in point of time. It

is true that the parties to a live-in relationship or non formal

relationship who have lived together for an extended period of

time could be brought within the purview of laws relating to

maintenance and domestic violence and could be considered as

husband and wife for the said limited purpose. But, parties to Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

such a relationship cannot be elevated to marital status. A female

partner in a live-in relationship cannot have a better claim than a

legally married wife. For all these reasons, we hold that the court

below was absolutely justified in declaring the status of the first

respondent as the legally wedded wife of late Reghunathan.

23. After deciding so, the court below further went on to

decide the question of legitimacy of respective children of the

appellant and the first respondent. The court below found that

since there is no evidence with respect to the marriage between

the appellant and late Reghunathan, the children of the appellant

also cannot claim any right over the property including the death

benefits and that the first respondent along with her children are

jointly entitled to the death benefits of late Reghunathan. The

said findings cannot be sustained for more than one reasons.

24. Under Section 7(1) read with Explanation (e) of the

Family Courts Act, 1984, a suit or proceeding for a declaration 'as

to the legitimacy of any person' is within the jurisdiction of the

Family Court. Legitimacy presupposes a valid marriage. In the

absence of a valid marriage, there can be no question of

legitimacy or otherwise at all. Existence of a valid matrimonial Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

relationship is sine qua non to attract Explanation (e) to Section

7(1). A declaration of legitimacy can be granted only when there

is admitted or proved matrimonial relationship. Explanation (e)

to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act cannot be stretched to

adjudicate upon legitimacy or illegitimacy of any person born in

a casual or live-in-relationship. Having found that there is no valid

marriage between the appellant and late Reghunathan, the court

below went wrong in further adjudicating the legitimacy of the

children born out of their relationship. That apart, the legitimacy

of those children and their entitlement to the death benefits of

late Reghunathan was adjudicated and decided without hearing

them. They are not parties to the original petition. Even no such

relief was sought in the original petition. Hence, finding of the

court below that the children of the appellant are not entitled to

the right over the properties including the death benefits of late

Reghunathan is liable to be set aside. We do so. It is up to the

Railway authorities to decide in accordance with law whether the

two children of late Reghunathan born out of the relationship with

the appellant are also entitled to his death benefits. The Family

Court cannot decide the said issue. The jurisdiction of the Family Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

court is confined to decide the dispute as to the marital status of

the appellant and the first respondent and their entitlement to

receive the death benefit based on the decision of marital status.

25. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted

that the original petition must fail for want of statutory notice

under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the

respondents 2 to 4. We cannot subscribe to the said argument.

The reliefs sought for in the original petition falls within

Explanation (b) (c) and (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts

Act. Explanation (b) is in the nature of a proceeding relating to

declaration as to the nullity of marriage or the matrimonial status

of a person. If a person claims himself to be the wife or the

husband of another, a declaration could be sought for that she is

the legally wedded wife or he is the legally wedded husband of

the other. It need not necessarily be between the parties and

even after the death of either of them, such question may arise.

Explanation (c) refers to a suit or other proceeding between the

parties to marriage with respect to their properties or of either of

them whereas Explanation (d) refers to a suit or proceeding for

an order of injunction in the circumstances arising out of the Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

marital relationship. Therefore, to attract Explanation (c), the

dispute must be between the parties to the marriage whereas

Explanation (d) will be attracted if the dispute arises out of

marital relationship and need not necessarily be between the

spouses. If the real dispute is between the parties to the

marriage, the fact that there are other parties also arrayed in the

suit is irrelevant.

26. In this case, main relief sought for is for a declaration

as to the status of the first respondent as the legally wedded wife

of late Reghunathan. It will squarely fall under S.7(b) of the

Family Courts Act. The reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction

sought are ancillary reliefs to the main relief of declaration. It falls

under Explanation (c) and (d). Essentially, the dispute is between

the appellant and the first respondent as to their marital status.

To decide the dispute involved in the case, the presence of the

respondents 2 to 4 are not even necessary. Their position in the

array of parties is also not all relevant so long as the suit or

proceedings in substance and in its core is between the appellant

and the first respondent. They can only be treated as a pro forma

respondents and, hence, no notice under Section 80 is required. Mat.Appeal No.338/2017

As stated already, the Railway authorities is at liberty to take a

decision on the entitlement of the death benefits of late

Reghunathan based on the declaration of marital status made in

favour of the first respondent in this proceedings. The relief of

permanent injunction granted by the court below against a party,

that too formal, outside the matrimony is uncalled for and is,

thus, liable to be set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

The relief of permanent prohibitory injunction granted

against the respondents 2 to 4 (Respondents 1 to 3 before the

court below) is set aside. The relief of declaration and the relief of

permanent prohibitory injunction granted against the appellant

(Respondent No.4 before the court below) are confirmed. No

costs.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE Rp True Copy

PS to Judge