Telangana High Court
Varanasi Venkata Satya Vijayalakshmi ... vs Varanasi Prameela Rani And 2 Others on 11 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
APPEAL SUIT No.46 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the
appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3, Smt. Vani Kandarpa, learned
counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff and Sri A. Radha Krishna,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.4 to 6.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendant
Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned
Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at
Khammam, dated 05.12.2018 in O.S.No.174 of 2012, whereby the
suit filed for declaring respondent No.1/plaintiff as legal heir of Late
Varanasi Ravi Kumar has been decreed. Further, decreed that
respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled for the death benefits and
directed respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.4 to 6 to release the
death benefits of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar in favour of respondent
No.1/plaintiff.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are
referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.174 of 2012.
Facts of the case:
4. Defendant No.1 is the 1st wife and defendant Nos.2 and 3
are the children of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. Defendant No.1 was
married to Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar on 14.03.1982 and defendant
Nos.2 and 3 were born on 25.04.1985 and 11.06.1990 respectively.
Due to disputes, defendant No.1 filed M.C.No.42 of 1991 under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. While so, Late Varanasi
Ravi Kumar filed O.P.No.74 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bheemavaram seeking dissolution of marriage. The said O.P
was dismissed and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar preferred
C.M.A.No.2341 of 1999 on the file of the erstwhile High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh to set aside the dismissal order.
5. When the said CMA was pending, Late Varanasi Ravi
Kumar married the plaintiff on 19.04.2000 at Sri Raja Rajeswari
Temple, Rotary Nagar, Khammam as per Hindu rites and customs.
Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed a criminal case vide
C.C.No.293 of 2006 under Section 494 of Cr.P.C alleging that her
husband married the plaintiff during subsistence of her marriage.
While the things stood thus, in the year 2008, the elders have
brought about settlement between defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Late
Varanasi Ravi Kumar whereby Late Ravi Kumar paid an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3 towards full and final
settlement of their share in his properties. In a reciprocal
arrangement, defendant No.1 withdrew her bigamy case i.e.
C.C.No.293 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Bheemavaram. Further, by filing a memo, the CMA was
allowed. The aforementioned settlement was presented before the
Lok Adalat at Bheemavaram and an award was passed
incorporating the terms of settlement. Meanwhile, as per the orders
in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Bheemavaram, the marriage between defendant No.1 and her
husband was dissolved. Thus, defendant No.1 ceased to be wife of
Late Ravi Kumar. Thereafter, on 03.12.2010, Varanasi Ravi Kumar
died leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole successor. After the
death of Ravi Kumar, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to
declare her as the legal heir of Late Ravi Kumar and consequential
relief of entitlement to seek death benefits and other emoluments of
Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar.
6. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 made appearance before the trial
Court and filed written statement claiming to be legal heirs of Late
Ravi Kumar. Further, denied the legal status of the plaintiff as wife
of Late Ravi Kumar as her marriage with Late Ravi Kumar took
place during the subsistence of the defendant No.1's marriage with
her husband. Defendant No.1 denied the marriage between the
plaintiff and her husband and also relinquishing her share. The
defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim death
benefits of late Ravi Kumar as relinquishment is a nominal
document which does not debar them from claiming the death
benefits.
7. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and the same is
adopted by defendant Nos.5 and 6. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 pleaded
that they have no interest in the inter-se disputes between the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 and are ready to pay death benefits to
any person as directed by the Court.
8. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned Judge, Family
Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam, framed the
following three issues for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as
legal heir and successor of her husband
Varanasi Ravi Kumar for entitlement of death
benefits and other emoluments?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory
injunction directing D4 to D6 not to pay any
amounts to D1 to D3?
3) To what relief?
9. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, witnesses PW1 to
PW3 were examined and documents Ex.A1 to A11 marked. Per
contra, defendant No.1 filed her chief examination affidavit but did
not appear for cross examination. Any amount of time and
opportunity given were not availed to lead evidence by defendant
No.1. In the circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI
Additional District Judge at Khammam closed the evidence of
defendants and passed judgment on the basis of the evidence got
adduced by the plaintiff declaring her as the legal heir of Late
Varanasi Ravi Kumar and directed defendant Nos.4 to 6 to release
the death benefits of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar in favour of the
plaintiff. There were incidental proceedings of filing of Transfer
petition vide Tr.O.P.No.429 of 2018 and the same were dismissed.
Since no appeals are preferred, the impugned judgment and decree
became final. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the
present appeal is preferred by the defendants.
Contentions of the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3:
10. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that the learned Judge,
Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam failed
to consider the fact that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized
on 19.04.2000 during subsistence of marriage between defendant
No.1 with Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar and therefore, the plaintiff
cannot be declared as his successor or legal heir. As per service
record of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar, the name of defendant No.1 is
entered as his nominee. Further, the service record shows defendant
Nos.1 to 3 as nominees and therefore, no one else is entitled to
receive the death benefits of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. Defendant
Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar and their
rights cannot be barred on the basis of Ex.A4 Award passed by the
Mandal Legal Services Authority, Bheemavaram. Hence, the
appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 prayed that the impugned
judgment and decree be set aside.
Contentions of respondent No.1/plaintiff
11. Plaintiff contended that marriage between defendant No.1
and her husband is no longer in subsistence on account of various
cases filed by both the parties followed by recording of the Lok
Adalat award dated 20.09.2008. It is emphasized that as per the
Lok Adalat award, a compromise was reached between the parties. It
is further emphasized that the parties i.e. plaintiff and Late
Varanasi Ravi Kumar with his parents on one hand and the
defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand have come to a compromise
that Rs.8,00,000/- would be paid towards full and final settlement
to defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is argued that as per said award, both
parties agreed for withdrawal of CMA before the High Court and for
getting consent divorce decree by filing memo and for withdrawal of
the criminal case filed under Section 494 of IPC. The award has
been recorded and therefore, argued that the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI
Additional District Judge at Khammam could not be set aside on
technical grounds.
Analysis of the Court:
12. The first and foremost point to be considered is that as per
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vidhyadhar vs.
Manikrao and another 1, when a party to a suit does not present
himself or herself for adducing oral evidence and to face cross
examination, the pleadings cannot be considered.
13. In the instant case, defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants herein
in spite of giving sufficient opportunity failed to appear before the
learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at
Khammam for leading oral evidence. Defendant No.1 failed to enter
the witness box to support her pleadings and therefore, the
pleadings of the written statement are to be taken as nullity.
Consequently, the matter has to be decided only on the basis of the
pleadings and evidence adduced by the plaintiff. As per the case of
the plaintiff herself, defendant No.1 is the 1st wife of Late Varanasi
Ravi Kumar having married him on 14.03.1982 and has given birth
to defendant Nos.2 and 3 out of wed lock. Due to disputes,
defendant No.1 filed M.C.No.42 of 1991 seeking maintenance and
Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar filed O.P.No.74 of 1995 seeking
dissolution of marriage. The said M.C was allowed and the O.P was
dismissed. Late Ravi Kumar was paying maintenance to defendant
(1999) 3 SCC 573
Nos.1 to 3. Subsequently, vide orders dated 28.10.2010 in
H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2010, the marriage between defendant No.1 and
Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar was dissolved. While the disputes and
legal proceedings were pending before the various courts, Late Ravi
Kumar married the plaintiff on 19.04.2000. After dissolution of the
marriage on 28.10.2010, Late Ravi Kumar died on 03.12.2010. At
this juncture, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration as legal heir
and entitlement to death benefits and emoluments of Late Ravi
Kumar.
14. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District
Judge at Khammam on the basis of evidence adduced by the
plaintiff decreed the suit in her favour and the same is challenged
by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 alleging that the marriage of the plaintiff
with the deceased Ravi Kumar took place while the marriage
between defendant No.1 and Late Ravi Kumar was subsisting.
Further, it is the case of the defendants that the names of
defendants are recorded in the service register and therefore, the
plaintiff is not entitled for the death benefits. This Court does not
see any strength in the case of the defendants in the light of
contents of the Lok Adalat award dated 20.09.2008 marked under
Ex.A4. The Lok Adalat award dated 20.09.2008 makes it crystal
clear that the defendants have agreed to settle all the legal disputes
on payment of Rs.8,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 3 as full and
final settlement. On payment of said amount, it is agreed between
the parties that defendant No.1 would withdraw the criminal case
registered under Section 494 of IPC and that she will file a memo
before the Family Court for settling the said case with consent. For
passing of a decree of divorce and that Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar
would settle the case in C.M.A.No.2341 of 1999 before the High
Court.
15. Upon recording of said award for all practical purposes, all
the outstanding family, legal and monetary disputes between
defendants and Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar were settled. A Lok
Adalat award carries with it a legal sanctity. Said award cannot be
appealed and is final in nature. Defendant No.1 has asserted her
rights and settled the matter before a competent forum and
therefore, she cannot turn a blind eye to the undertaking given by
her before the Lok Adalat and contest the suit for declaration filed
by the plaintiff.
16. In the instant case, the contents of the Lok Adalat
award/Ex.A4 show that there was full and final settlement between
the parties with no further claims by defendants against the plaintiff
or Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar. The only spoiler for the plaintiff has
been death of Varanasi Ravi Kumar within two months of obtaining
the decree of divorce with defendant No.1. Had Late Varanasi Ravi
Kumar being alive, the question of giving his retirement benefits to
his sons would be in doubt as there was a full and final settlement
between the parties.
17. With regard to the names of defendants being recorded in
the service register of Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar, it is to be seen that
until the decree of divorce was passed on 28.10.2010, there was no
occasion for Late Ravi Kumar to change the names of nominees. It is
quiet probable that Late Ravi Kumar never anticipated his death
within 1 month 5 days of obtaining decree of divorce. There would
have been no occasion for him to change the name of nominees in
his service register. In view of the undertaking given by the
defendants before a competent forum like Lok Adalat, since the Lok
Adalat award is final which cannot be appealed, this Court does not
see any reason to interfere with the undertakings given by the
respective parties while settling of the disputes. In view of the Lok
Adalat Award dated 20.09.2008, obtaining a decree of divorce
dissolution was mere a formality. Only on technical ground that the
decree of dissolution was not passed as on the date of marriage of
plaintiff with Late Varanasi Ravi Kumar, there is no other ground to
seek any relief by defendant Nos.1 to 3.
18. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 with full knowledge about the
undertaking given by them before the Lok Adalat are obstructing the
benefits to be accrued by the plaintiff on hyper technical grounds.
The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are under legal obligation to abide by the
undertaking given by them before the Lok Adalat i.e. receipt of
Rs.8,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. The
appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 cannot claim any other benefits
subsequently only by taking advantage of death of Varanasi Ravi
Kumar. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Khammam, dated
05.12.2018 in O.S.No.174 of 2012.
19. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are
closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 11.04.2025
gvl
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
11.04.2025
gvl
