ANANDAVALLY v. UNION OF INDIA represented by SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI; DIRECTOR, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY; RESPONDENTS 3 (PADMINI AMMA) EXPIRED; ADDL.R4 REMANI; ADDL.R5 AJAYA KUMAR; OTHERS

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 33766 OF 2019 ``` ## **`PETITIONER`** ``` ANANDAVALLY, AGED 72 YEARS W/O LATE ARUMUGHAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEKUDILINKAL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHY PANCHYATH, KANJIKUZHY, CHERTHALA-688 539. BY ADVS. C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF SMT.MOLTY MAJEED SRI.P.B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.RUBEN GEORGE ROCK ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI.`** - **`2 THE DIRECTOR, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, 1767 A, SHIPYARD QUARTERS ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR (SOUTH) KOCHI, KERALA-682 036.`** - **`3 (PADMINI AMMA) EXPIRED AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AJITHA VILASAM, VARANAM P.O.CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.`** - **`4 ADDL.R4 REMANI, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.LATE PADMINI AMMA, REJANI NIVAS, 11TH MILE, MARUTHORVATTOM POST, ALAPPUZHA-688539`** - **`5 ADDL.R5 AJAYA KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE PADMINI AMMA, AJITHA VILASAM, VARANAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688555 [ADDL.R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/08/2022 IN I.A:5/2022 IN WP(C) 33766/2019]`** ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN, CGC-MR1 & R2 B.PRAMOD BIJU VIGNESWAR ASWATHI SURESH AYYAPPADAS V ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2023 A 75 year old Widow is before this Court seeking to direct the 2[nd] respondent to disburse the family pension to the petitioner with arrears from March, 2016, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The petitioner states that she married one Arumughan Nair, who was employed in Export Inspection Agency. The marriage took place on 27.11.1984. Ext.P1 is the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Karayogam. The said Arumughan Nair passed away on 30.04.2004. The petitioner had no issues with the Arumughan Nair. 3. The Export Inspection Agency paid family pension to the 3[rd] respondent finding that the 3[rd] respondent is the first legally wedded wife. When the petitioner approached the Export Inspection Agency, the Agency wanted both the parties ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 4 ``` to produce Succession Certificate. The 3[rd] respondent obtained a Succession Certificate and started to receive family pension. The 3[rd] respondent passed away during the pendency of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner states that she filed O.S.No.534 of 2010 in the Munsiff’s Court, Cherthala, seeking to declare that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife. The defendants remain absent and the Original Suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the petitioner. 5. The 3[rd] respondent, who claimed to be the first legally wedded wife, filed Appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.534 of 2010. The Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the Munsiff’s Court for deciding the issue on merits. 6. However, the Munsiff’s Court passed Ext.P4 judgment directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate Family Court for resolution of their disputes, the issue being a ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 5 ``` family dispute. 7. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court with the above writ petition. The petitioner would submit that there is Ext.P2 registered Dissolution Deed executed on 23.07.1962 evidencing that the marriage of the petitioner’s late husband with the 3[rd] respondent was dissolved. This document was considered by the Munsiff’s Court while granting Ext.P3 decree, contends the petitioner. 8. The petitioner pointed out that this Court has considered the legality of such documents in the backdrop of claim for family pension and has held in the judgment in _**Prasanna Kumari G. v. Secretary, Union of India and others** [2008 (3) KLT 736]_ that whether registered document is sufficient instead of Court Decree to prove dissolution of marriage and answered that such registered Dissolution Deeds would suffice for establishing right under the CCS (Pension) Rules. In view of the said judgment, respondents 1 ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 6 ``` and 2 are compellable to pay the family pension to the petitioner, contends the counsel for the petitioner. 9. After the demise of the 3[rd] respondent, the first wife, legal heirs of the 3[rd] respondent were impleaded as additional respondents 4 and 5. Counsel for additional respondents 4 and 5 resisted the writ petition. Additional respondents 4 and 5 denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the counter affidavit. It is pointed out on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 that the marriage of late Arumughan Nair with the 3[rd] respondent is not disputed by the petitioner. A legal marriage can be dissolved only as per the procedure prescribed by law. It is well settled that a Dissolution Deed whether registered or not, is not sufficient for a legal divorce or for dissolution of a marriage. 10. The petitioner married late Arumughan Nair during the life time and during the subsistence of the marriage between Arumughan Nair and the 3[rd] respondent. In the ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 7 ``` circumstances, the petitioner cannot be treated as the legally wedded wife of late Arumughan Nair under any stretch of imagination. 11. As regards the judgment of this Court in **Prasanna Kumari G.** (supra), the counsel for additional respondents 4 and 5 pointed out that the said judgment was an exceptional one passed in the peculiar facts of the case. The petitioner is therefore not eligible to any relief in this writ petition. 12. Central Government Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and submitted that they have not paid family pension to the 3[rd] respondent. Family pension was paid to the petitioner. Subsequently, when disputes arose over the right to family pension, respondents 1 and 2 stopped disbursement of family pension. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 8 ``` additional respondents 4 and 5. 14. In this writ petition, it is an admitted position that there was a marriage between the petitioner and the late Arumughan Nair on 27.11.1984. The petitioner was receiving family pension after the demise of Arumughan Nair. Now, the dispute is between the petitioner and additional respondents 4 and 5. The issue is whether the marriage of late Arumughan Nair with the 3[rd] respondent stood dissolved as per the registered Dissolution Deed evidenced by Ext.P2. 15. Perusing the writ petition and after hearing the parties on either side, I find that after the demise of the 3[rd] respondent during the pendency of the writ petition, additional respondents 4 and 5, who are aged 65 years and 48 years respectively, cannot have a claim over the family pension payable to the legally wedded wife of late Arumughan Nair. As such respondents cannot contest the writ petition over the family pension payable to the wife of late Arumughan Nair. ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 9 ``` 16. In this case, it is seen that after the demise of Arumughan Nair, respondents 1 and 2 were paying family pension to the petitioner till 2016. It was only when a dispute arose that respondents 1 and 2 advised the parties to obtain Succession Certificates. 17. Now that the 3[rd] respondent is no more and additional respondents 4 and 5 cannot legally claim family pension in respect of the deceased Arumughan Nair, I do not think an adjudication over the succession need be made in this writ petition. The petitioner has been in receipt of family pension of the late Arumughan Nair, pursuant to her marriage with Arumughan Nair on 27.11.1984. 18. In the circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is now 75 years old, it would be only proper that respondents 1 and 2 continue to pay family pension to the petitioner. This will be, however, without pronouncing anything on the right of the petitioner to succeed the estate of ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 10 ``` the late Arumughan Nair, which issue is left open. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay family pension in respect of Arumughan Nair to the petitioner along with its arrears, within a period of two months. **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** hmh ``` WP(C) NO.33766 OF 2019 ``` ``` 11 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33766/2019`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 ``` ``` A PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.4.2004 ISSUED BY THE NSS KARAYOGAM A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTERED DISSOLUTION DEED NO 44/1962 DATED 23.7.1962 OF SRO ARROKKUTTY ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3A PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2012 IN OS 534/2010 OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA EXHIBIT P4A PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.1.2018 IN OS 534/2010 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5A PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONERS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT EXHIBIT P6A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.5.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBITS P7A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05.10.2017 ``` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5A ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO MY MOTHER VIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2010 IN O.P(SUCCESSION) NO.3/2008 ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA ```