judgment and decree in order to point out that the main ground on which the Trial Court has upheld the claim of respondent No.1plaintiff was by coming to the conclusion that the appellants had not established that the marriage between respondent No.1 and R.Annamalai had been dissolved by a decree for divorce and consequently, so long as the appellants had not established that respondent No.1 was a divorced wife of R. Annamalai, she would be entitled to receive family pension, particularly, since, the second wife Smt.Vijaya had pre-deceased R. Annamalai, and had expired in the year 1993. In this context, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in order to establish that the marriage between respondent No.1 and R. Annamalai had got dissolved by a decree for divorce, the appellants have filed an application - IA No.1/2023, for permission to produce additional documents by way of certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 22.03.1973 passed in M.C No.6/1971, whereby the said matrimonial proceedings instituted by R.Annamalai against respondent No.1 culminated in a decree for divorce, pursuant to which the marriage between them was dissolved and respondent No.1 acquired the status of a divorced wife, who would not be entitled to claim or receive family pension in terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Family Pension Rules, 1964. It is
