Kerala High Court
Arunadevi T.P. vs Omana on 18 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Mat.Appeal.No.1089 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.(Others) No.899/2015
DATED 21-06-2016 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA
--------
APPELLANT/S:
ARUNADEVI T.P., AGED 54 YEARS,
AYIKKARA THARAYIL, KANDIYOOR,
MAVELIKKARA.
BY ADV. SMT.M.VANAJA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 OMANA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.SUKUMARAN,
THENGUVILAYIL, CHERUKUNNAM MURI, KURATHIKAD P.O.
THEKKEKARA VILLAE- 690 107.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM- 695 001).
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.A.HARITHA
R1 BY ADV. SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR
R2 BY SMT.ASHA CHERIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.1089/2016 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of March 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This Mat.Appeal was filed challenging the judgment
of the Family Court, Mavelikkara in O.P.
(others)No.899/2015 dated 21.06.2016.
2. The dispute is between two women claiming the
legal status of the wife of deceased Sukumaran, who
was a railway employee.
2. Omana, the first respondent herein approached
the Family Court, Mavelikkara seeking a declaration
that she was the legally wedded wife of late Sukumaran
and entitled to the Family pension of her husband from
the railway. The relief sought by her was granted by
the Family Court. It is challenging the judgment of
the Family Court, the appellant-Arunadevi has come up
with this appeal. The marriage between Omana and
Sukumaran was solemnized on 27.3.1975. In that
wedlock, three daughters were born. Omana produced
Annexure-A1 marriage certificate issued by the
Thekkekara Grama Panchayath. Omana also produced
Annexure A2 series of free pass issued by the southern
railway and the legal heirship certificate issued by
the revenue authority. The case of the appellant-
Arunadevi was that she married Sukumaran on 15.11.2008
as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act,
1954. Sukumaran died on 27.8.2010. The appellant-
Arunadevi produced Ext.B11, a statement showing the
details of the members of the Family for the purpose
of Family Pension, Southern Railway, Ernakulam and
also produced Ext.B13, a form for nomination for
payment of arrears of pension, Southern Railway
(Notary attested copy) and other documents. It appears
that there was some kind of cohabitation with the
appellant with Sukumaran. It also appears that
Sukumaran also nominated the appellant as a person to
draw pension being the family member. The fact remains
that from the evidence produced by Omana, there was a
valid marriage between Omana and Sukumaran in the year
1975. Three children were born in the wedlock. In the
absence of any evidence regarding dissolution of the
marriage between Omana and Sukumaran, the appellant-
Arunadevi cannot claim the status of a legally wedded
wife. Merely because Sukumaran had nominated the
appellant-Arunadevi to draw family pension being the
family member, the appellant-Arunadevi would not come
in the meaning of the definition of the member of
family, unless she holds the legal status to claim as
a legally wedded wife. Under the relevant provisions
of the Railway Regulations and Rules, the railway does
not recognize any stranger other than the family
member as a nominee to draw the family pension.
In the light of the facts and circumstances, we
find that the Family Court was justified in declaring
the status of Omana as the legally wedded wife
entitled to draw family pension. We find no merit in
the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ln
