High Court Karnataka High Court

Kumari Divyalakshmi D/O Late P … vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Kumari Divyalakshmi D/O Late P … vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar
E

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3151 DAY OF AUGUST 20 

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MA_bl:;I_iJf'NAEC}i._ T  "  A 

AND:

THE I-IONBLE MR.Jus_T;c:<:.VB';MA1~1:§:+:A}§ :2 u
MFA.N0.2216°0E*'2006(FC¢j'T  1

_E_1_3_T.__W.£'3.E.1\£

1.

3}.

Kumari Divyalakshfiii,   .  .. '-
D/0.La_te.E'.:'\rui1ach§1§am;*~T' V._2 ' "
Aged 4a'Ej)V0u;it'L .y'eaiis_, ' 

13/ 0.;r4\.Do1fa~1'$=.aran}j7'; , 
W/'o,_Late P,ArunVVa"§:ha1am.

_ . Aged "ab_O'ut .48°yeé1rs,

"  Both" are fééidihg at No.9,

Velu-mt:r_ugapuram

._  ' CV';{-3'/I.1;~Royan Road.
 Bangalore.

. . .APPELLANTS

' . V. (By4"S.riiJfx. ktzmarvei, Advocate)

State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,

fv'



Health Department.
1V£.S.Bui1dirag.
Bangalore-560 001.

2. The Director,  A 
Health and Family Welfare Serv1'ces,h__  ' 
Ananda Rao Circle,    'l S"
Baraga1ore--560 009. '

3. The Director,
NI1\/IHANS.
Hosur Road,
Bangalore--560 029.

4. The Accountant Ge.n'e1*al»5ir1 l{ar.na.t"aka,
Bangalore.~_560 0.01.._  ' '   * 

5. Smt.{).L4Xn1.areshwai%i, _ V V 
    '
8?-_"M_VBlo.ck, 1K,orarr1'anga1a,_ 
    ...REsPoNoENTs

(By sri;Ramachguéja:a.aINa:k. HCGP for R1. 2 5: -4.
Sri.Pr'a_kash.T_.Hebhar, Advocate for R5.
Sri.S.P.Sathish. Ad\?ocate for R5)

 filed" 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.

i:_jtl.d§_3;1'11f31'1'[ and decree dated: 29.10.2005

0patsesedm".'»o.'a.No.79/2003 on the file of the  Addl. pm.

" " -- ._ V declaration.

Ju'dge,\--..0Far1i'ily Court, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for

6/



This Appeal coming on for hearing this. day,
K.L.l\/IANJUNATH, J., Delivered the following: l 
J U D G M E N T

The present appeal is filed by the

are the plaintiffs in

Additional Principal Judge,_F_ami1ly–.Cllourt, ll

2. A suit was filed by t.he”i’s»a:ppellan’ts that V

they are the C1asvs::f’i’*w~l_ legalll the “deceased
P.ArunaehalamV and claim all the

servieellllollenefiiyfts onftliejldeeeasedllkrunaehalarn. The Trial
Court holding that the plaintiffs

as wellppas and her children are entitled

t.ov”iClailri’i share in the retirement benefits of deceased

A ‘– Araunlaelfrallarigi-. V

3. l not satisfied with the said decree. the

prelsent appeal is filed.

fir

4. Today the parties have fiied a compromise

petition. which is signed by the appellants I andfl a.nd

5i” respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the parties

respondents I to 4 are only £~:£:nai.

would act upon the decree, which

this court.

6. Parties are pr”es_ent2V”be’i;oi”eT”e-ighis eourt. The

respective advocates identif1te’d5vtheii’vA_’.res’pective parties

and Ztitiew execution of the

compromise. *

7. _.Accord.ing»_.:-tot’. the compromise petition. the

ap”pe11a,12ts’i–..are Hentitied to 50% of the death benefits

3?” respondent on account of the death

of a.nd 51″ respondent and her children

together; entitled for the balance 50% of the death

“‘AA1;5e»rie’i”it. 51′” respondent is entitied for pensionary

(8%

‘..J\

benefits. on account of 5″‘ respondent marrying

Arunachalarn after giving divorce to the_.v~s’eelond

appellant. Considering that the first appellaril

any avoeation. she is entitled to~–fil.e an fer’

appointment on Cornpassionate7.grouln–ris–.

respondent and her chiidre–np:”‘ia_ave .”r.o_ obijer;tVi’oV’n”‘for the”

first appellant to secure a jobo-n_:’eoinpassionratej ground.

8. In terms of the corn_pro’mlis:e. is disposed

of and the orderipof thie triaj..:co.ii’rf_jis rnlodified.

is draw a modified decree.

-4 Edge
sale;

Indie

l_J