{N THE HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA AT BANGAI.,v0R~E '~..v
DATES THIS THE 22th DAY OF' AUGUST *-
BEFORE
THE HON'}3LE MR. JUSTICE K.N:;.1:E5;HA;vANARAVAr§;«;_'
R.s.A.NO.4jZ;9/205a_
BETWEEN:
Sm VENKATALAKSH Mamm
W/OVENKATASWAMY - '
46 YEARS V V
R/AT BOYISON1f~EEi'E.AHALL¥"'~; _ _
BETHAMANGALA .9.::;BL:<. g
BANGA;3PEj*.?fA{..:'i3--Q_'1'"U-,ifS.=f '10f»:'s__ Ci? <§r%;*:"AGA:NST THE
JUDGE§2iEN§*"7;a BATED 11.1.08 PASSED IN
R.A.N(3,/¢€38./(32- OF' THE CIVIL JUDGE,
(SRQN), §§?:£%.1é*.,V. P5A(R;I'I,Y"«.:!'iLLGWING THE APPEAL AND
saqfr-_:NGL..AsIfi'E. 'tHEQUDGEMENT AND mama mg
'V "'2Q.:r--.<.52 PASSED ':"N%";s 275/98 ON THE FILE} GF THE £
_A:31j>L,_ .Ts.zs:o.2*?§/98 on the me of the cm: Judge {J2'.D1';.),
KGL?' quastiorzj:r1g the iegality and correcmess of _ the
judgmc:1"3t. and decree dated 11.1.2008 passed-4jb§§*f"--«tj}'1§
Civil Judge (s;r.m1.), KGF in R.A.No.208/2392 '
the jxldglnent and decree of tIr1(3.-V trial' ca%m~:% V
the suit flied by the resp0£i=:1§2.::;.§A1_:é;'T 3 "
Consequently decreeing the suit." ~
2. Respondents 31:0 3 Vf1}eVfi'L_:tIi'e.._ abo&?é's:.¢2id'Esu:it for
declaration that the Iggaily weddcd
wife ‘2 3 é’1’€’=:’ the daughters of iate
‘s£enkaté1swaIt1y- V permanent i3(]j’€1I”ICtiOI1
x’€$1:r§ai:f1iI1gL daiiaiidaiii No.1 from drawing ‘aha éeath
V’ cgliii- %*e’e,i;’er;9.¢I1t béiééfits payable in respect of deceased
The respondems 4 tan 6 herein were
im1::–1;§ad;ed’A;i€:fe:1dants 2 to 4. The plaintifis inter afia
“{;’QIflt€I’l:.(31€.éi that the firs: piairztiff is the iagafly Wedde&
_ £a¢fi;fe flats ‘sfmkataswamy and their maxfiage was
..:3r:-jilarnonisisd; 0:”: $06K 19?8 according to the Hindu
A ‘ cusmms and rites; that after the marriage they iived
mgether as husband and wife; that from Gut of thgsaid
wed lock three daughters were born, out of
by ,no__m&5____.¢ 4 jh «
daughterjfiusheela died on 1.3.1996 whiIe_.’4’p-1aj:g;tifi’s 1 =
and 3 are the surviving daughters of ‘
and Venkataswamy; that Vemkafé.sxa%’r§1fl}r Wafi _
as {-31 Guard in the Excise é¢fiafiméf1t__ “,§1é~-fiieci’: on ”
15.7.1998 and at 1:116; ;—time x€%é.;~;-AAs£::§’viI1g in
chancamani; that the p;g;11mrg%are;;;¢ heirs of the
said Vemkamgéflmfiyr Na} has no
co:111€é;:i0I;I.. AV __ — I with the deceased
Venkataswgxzay, “‘?héifefé¢ r—€:’, 7511:: piaintiffs are the only
pe1’$Q:17s awho V enfitied to receive the death cum
;1.A'{3’E711’%31ET£;(;;f«}fi.’.«4’V1:.Li€_?fV£”1f:f’i1:S pa},-T’a_b1e in rexspect of éeceased
i¢’ef:katé;s€£2va m ‘ ‘V
3,. V”‘}”§c:.f<;:z'1(:ia11t 1%.} contested the suit. She denied
V' Léase of the plainfifis. She ccntendeci that the first
pia;im:ii'f is not the iegafiy Wedded wifc of Verwataswamy
' and plaintiffs 2 anci 3 are net born out of the said wsé
5,/«
lock. Therefore, she contendeci that the p1a,§z1tjfi"sV_h_a.ve
no manner of right, iitle or interest over the
retirement benefits payable in respect cf dr;c:§:é.1§ed 4' M
Venkataswamy. She contended is
wedded wifa of said Venkata§xva1fiy__ fi'c)§:1;v_AA.Q'ut
said wed lock, she has .£o"~t_i§*<3T by
name Pramila and Vija§}y'…Kurfié§f;. f.§;;:fef§)3:e#« ':.%',V1?in;e°.¢V.41I1c1 her
children alone are enfitééd' J _t;1'.;e death cum
retiremsnt of damaged
Venkatfiswaffi3ii_~ _ « , = ' I
4. Of; 1$l’a:s§i4 $A’.;0i’»£3:*;<: pleadirxgs of the part;ie$, the
, A Trial 5a:',c;3.j.1*t fratiiéjé. foflowillg issues:
' " .. the plaintiffs proves that plaintiff
the legally wedded Wife and
A.__p£ai§'"1tii'f Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters sf
,, fificceased Venkaiaswamy?
2. Whether plajxzts further prove that they
are entitled to the cieath benefits
deceased Venkataswmny?
3. Whether defendant No.1 proves _
is the legaily Wedded
‘sfenkataswamy aI2dV .te ”
receive the dea’r}.1_V:””-…benefits V
deceased?
4. Whether plamtfifs j. to the
reiiefs so11gh€fsg?’.i”‘
5. “evidence, the Triai Court an
appreei.atAieI”£” ‘tfie and documentary evidence,
“‘a2:1sive’2″e:zEiA t§’1eissues'”1, :2 and 4 in negative and issue
Ne.~3_u. %;£1e” eififinative holding that the plaintiffs have
_ failed tee’ that the first plafmtiff is the legally
” “veife and plaintjfis 2 anti} 3 are the daughters of
fiteeeased Venkataswamy, therefere the plaintifls are net
VT ” emitleci to receive the death cum retieexrgezzt benefits
W.
payable in respect. of deceased Venkataewemy. The
Trial Court further held that defendant No.1 is—.__i:he
legally wedded wife of deceased
therefore, she is entitled to receive all the 2
that View of the matter, the ‘-£i£1e”*.
suit.
ma} ceurt, the unsueceeefui ‘filed the afapeal in
R¢A.Noa._;V2Oéd3 eiéa Judge {Sr.DI1.), KGB’.
The L-{)V.,V,T’€1’fV. “en reassessment of the oral
and concurred with the finding of
the f1I’St defendant is the iegelly
Aia?edded”~:e>-ife ~”Venka*{aewamy, Hewever, though the
_ Leaver Agimdete ileum held that the first pleginfifi’ is the
W H ” :see#3:1d ef Kfenkataewamy and the said marriage
‘*e§><ee' aid' veid marriage, nevertheless held thee ':33? virtue ef
T 'Section 16(3) of the Hindu Mafiiage Act, the chfldren.
A berm to her viz, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to 3 share
we
6. Aggrieved by the ‘ef ‘the ” L’
in the death cum retirement benefits payable in reepect
of deceased Venkataswamy. In that View of the
the Lowe}: Appellate Court allowed the appeal ‘
setting aside the judgment aridgdeezfee nu
Trial Court and heid that e1e”‘i’.g,§§;eiiaete,AA’
(plaintiffs 2 and 3) and deferiéent 1%.’: eiiiitleti to ‘ i
the service benefite’ ._of ,.(i’eee}esed_._ Veiiiiateswamy.
However, the Lower not specify
anything abeizte lAenii£1en1efii:j_’~. children of
defendiz-git benefits of Venkataswamy.
Being judgment of the Lewer
App,e3.Eiete. éiefendeni Ne.1 bee presented this
”
” ._ ieiiewing substantial qi.l€:$’ti03.’1 of law hae
_ beeii” frai51:ee<i;"fer consieieraiion iii this appeal:
"Whether the Lower Appeiiate Ceurt is
i' fiustified ifl reetiieting the service benefits ef
Venkatasweiny eniy to plajnfifis 2, 3 and
M
defendant No.1 and not extenciirlg
benefits to the children of thfi first defen;1a_kf:V':' ~ 2
/ appellant '9"
8. I have heard ,Ié%§r;1e(£ “‘
counsel for the appeliant and
ceunsei appearing for the refipmndentsw 1 .t_o 3 e::$”v;/€11: as = L’
Sr§.B.B.G11dar, leamed_ High ‘ ni’;~QvefI1m¢nt,. fieader
appearing for resp0r1déi1’€$- ‘4 the records
secured from .,
9:§:,Tt1erz:§ ‘i:s’:”-fie iliat Venkataswamy Wha
was W0rk:i’11gTa:53 the Excise department died
A on 1998. v T}7}:f’V:v___I_5§_”;_i_$TS5’€ p1a3′:£1t’1fi’ claimed that she is the
::<;§a3;.1y z;%v$ci.§E:f;;5évwife While plaixztiifs 2 and 3 are children
oi" .'.xz'&i1k@;é.{z§§~:-w€iaVVm.y. ' However, accerding to the frst
'.V;1$fe1uid,a§1§;.V4'sh@ is the legally wedded wife of
V' 'V~:LR':§i:ikataswamy. As nsticaed earlier, the Tiial Court
récorded a finding that the first plaintiff is not a iegaily
'IO
wedded wife of Venkataswamy and the piaintiffs
are met their children. The 'I'ria} Court
finding of fact that defendant No. 1..is__t.he 3.='é'ed§iedi- K " V
wife of late Venkataswamy. The ;L;ou'%_e1'~~
in the appeal filed by the tee .3u
the fixiiding ef the Trial ,Couz'tt.h'e.. is net
the iegaily wecided Wife 'ieitey as she is
the second Wife. marriage with
that place dtircing the lifetime of
first defeiid4a1'1tV V legally wedcied wife of late
A Ve§;1:é§te1e:¥am§." findiiig ef the Lower Appeilate
Ceurt first }_C)iaiI}'£iff is not the iegally wedded
erife "(if iéefikataewamyr is not ehailengezi. In this
'.vbeha4i"£',. the Courts heiew have placed reiieriee on
V' "X_'i}'ie'i ifactiithat the deeeased Venkataswem}; éuring his
iifetitne had iieminated defendant No.1 es hie nemifiee
'' end iii the service beak She has been described as the
H
wife ef late Venkataswamy. The service book ef deceased
Venkataswamy has beer; stlmmoned and it has been marked
as Ex.D.3Q. As could be seen, fmm Ex.D.32,
reported for duty 03:1 8.2. 3980. As required by Rule. _
the Service Rules, the deceased Venkataewamy iaaseigbfizitieci '4 " = 'V
nominaeen forzn in KCSR FoIm~2 on
first defendant Venkata1aks1*1n1a:n1éj;:~~ as _'EizerA
reiationship with him has been shesx,:ޤ."v3.S* wife' ".Рis
the extract of admission regieteif Head Master,
Government Vef Boyi Sormenahalli,
in resyect. ef ef Veekataswarny. As
per this ergtziaet, de;t.e "0? of said Pramiianlma is
éxi;-3;},9'" is 1:heH§SéLC certificate pertairiting to 'ifijaya
Kumazyv2f£3e:'e–ii1._Vei1kataswaIey has eeen Shawn as father ef
T"VV:i?§ja}ra Dixie date of birth is ehewn as 6.fi.19?9.
' of the centerzts of E33. $5 and I329 has met
e'ie§'a£ed by :he p1a,i11tif'fe. Even aeeerciing we the first
V T her marriage with Verlkataewamy wee eeiemeeised
'E3.
on 6.5. 15376. Taking irxte Consideration the ex1tr:%%..VV?3§§.1;~?:1€
service baaek-Ex.{).32 and the date of him}; the «j;~;rg:f
secand chiid of the first defendant a,s…eVide:’ié:§é:d::i:”; ExsV.E)L,S”
and ‘[19, the courts below have
defendant is the legally u7eddetiT._§$2if¢ of”-Eats:
T113 judgments 0f the cogzgjs beA1:0*.*:Wfi::f3’ t;”»1§s not
been chaliengad by the €114:-;t”‘4 :45 £16} naed to go
into the con’ectn<f:s:~:=:{)n1y question to
be cansidered born to the first
the service benefits'.
10. ThéVV’LQ§verVV’A_pp¢ii¢’a;i:*e Court after having held that
:_.4p}aintiff§«:. children ‘Dora gut of a mid
:v’§1§}:id..that by virtue ai’ Section 15 (3) of the
‘ fiat, they are also entitlad for a share in
se1vic e;A’:. benefits of Venkataswamy. ‘3’he first
has not disputed the fmciixxg of the Lewer
Court ganting share in the service benefits of
” -Rfénkataswamy ta plaintiffs 2 and 3, The gievance 9:”
113
the appellant is oniy that the children born to her: are
alsc} entitled to a share in the service benefits’: of
husband. Her gI’i{3VaI1C€’ is well fflufldfld.. “‘%V1i{:%¥\:’~\t}%’)_%§”‘ ‘
children born through a void maxaéage’ h.§.ve x
Share in the service benefits of the é§..(§C:éaSe»:1; th-are’
no reasons for denying the benefit ‘:9 t}:3<%'~-giiiiidfen "
born thrasugh a valid thé't:vid<};noe on
record establishes thaf has twa
children viz.,_.. <:;;;¢. dégughicgr "jsb:1, the Lower
Appeflafze the said aspeci cf
the matté£'. 1 1a.s hold that plaintiffs 2 and 3
za.:1d'4r§€:1"e:1ciajf1€' $76 entitled to receive the iaenefits
'viii; Having regard to the fact that the firs:
birth to two children and they
VV . beirig c1a:s.S+I";hei1's of dewased Venkaiiatswamy they are
'A .__5e:1Vi:i'tieé far sham if} the sazvice b€I1€fit$ Gf their
fé;f;hé%. In the cittumstaxzcés 9f the case, the judgament
" {if the Lowar Appefiate Court ii} not gramtixxg Shara to
5
w
141
the childmn of the first. defendant in the sezVice..1§§:fi§:%’i{$”
of Venkataswamy is erroneous. Aj:tl”;e;*s5–‘e’ »
circumszances, it is necessary Ito ‘ 1_;1′”1e “deg:’1:”e§:_T
granteil by the Lower Appe11a;i£:_. (30:;i:i?1; 1;z§a h02d*i:1§’_tf1af; ,
addition to the plaintiffs :2 No.1,
the Wm chfldren. of érfiévjtled for
aqua} share in t}1e:A….s€*;If;ri§éVof dficeased
of piajnfifis
2 and 3 égzhiis defendant N051
and ‘ufijgeaher are gratified for 3/ 531
share i1’1″”tf;€: Vvsé’;’$7{ic;;€»-Efiégriefits payahie in respect 0f
_ decasé-§se<§~ Venkaflizaswamy.
V’ 1 of the above, the appeal is aflowedi
decree Qf the Lower Appefiate Court:
V . is in the extent irzdicated abavsr: declaring that
Gfvfiiaimtifis 2 and 3 (yespenderzts 2 and 3 herein)
–‘ éntitiéd far 1/531 share While the appeilant /
” “d’éfenda1’1i: and hm’ two children namely Pramila and
_ 12.3% ..
I5
Vijaya Kumar are enfifled to 1/331 share each, iii—.the
service benefits payable in respect of V.
Respondent No.4 herein vim, Deputy C¢e1f£’13;13iS$iQ’r1e3},– _
Excise, Kala? District, who is the atifiiafiw-:te.:_’di§biiI’seV”«
the retirement benefits paya4b–3.Ae H. in ?,’.i*,€§§peCt
Venkataswaxfny, is directed “et:§”* disb1V.§u”.se”* service
benefits to the partiee”-as twa
months. __