Dismissed

Smt a Uma v. Smt.B.Sudha

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024MFA/8377/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by a woman claiming to be the deceased employee's second wife against decree restraining disbursement of service benefits to her. Court held her marriage was void as the first marriage subsisted till death, so she inherits nothing; appeal dismissed and trial court decree confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 in O.S.No.69/2014 confirmed.

Smt a Uma Vs Smt.B.Sudha — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12601-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8377 OF 2017 (FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. A. UMA, W/O LATE R. TUKARAM SURYAVAMSHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, SHANTHINIVAS, THIMMARAYASWAMY ROAD, ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. B. SUDHA, W/O LATE R. TUKARAM SURYAVAMSHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶14

T. ASHISH, S/O LATE R. TUKARAM SURYAVAMSHI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶15

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1384, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, PRAKASH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 021.

¶16

THE WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC REGIONAL WORKS SHOP, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. JAY KISHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12601-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2017

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.69/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE RELIEF OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J .,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.69/2014 on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru.

¶23

The suit is filed against one A.Uma who claimed to be second wife of late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi. The plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.1 claim to be the first wife of late R. Tukaram Suryavamshi. The defendant No.2 is the mother of late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi and defendant No.3 is the employer of Late R. Tukaram Suryavamshi.

¶24

There is no dispute that R.Tukaram Suryavamshi died on 07.06.2013. There is again no

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12601-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2017

¶26

dispute that on 01.05.1994, R.Tukaram Suryavamshi married plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 is the son from the first marriage. The suit is filed on the premise that defendant No.1 is claiming to be the second wife of R.Tukaram Suryavamshi and she is insisting for disbursement of service benefits.

¶27

The first wife did not file the written statement though she appeared through the counsel. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record has held that the defendant No.1 is not entitled to the share in the service benefits of Late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi and thereby defendant No.3- employer is restrained from disbursing any portion of the service benefits to defendant No.1.

¶28

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendant No.1 is in appeal.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.1 would contend that the defendant No.1 lived with R.Tukaram Suryavamshi for a

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12601-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2017

¶31

long period as the relationship of R.Tukaram Suryavamshi with first wife was strained. It is also his submission that R.Tukaram Suryavamshi filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage against plaintiff No.1 and the said petition was dismissed for non prosecution.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the defendant No.1 has a son from R.Tukaram Suryavamshi and the said son has filed an application before this Court to come on record as appellant No.2. It is further submitted that the proposed appellant No.2 has produced the records to show that he is the son of late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi from defendant No.1.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would object to the said claim of the proposed appellant No.2 on the premise that he is not born to late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi. Whether the proposed appellant No.2 is the son of late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi from second wife/defendant No.1 is a matter

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12601-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2017

¶35

to be adjudicated in a properly constituted suit and not in this proceeding. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow the application of proposed appellant No.2 to come on record.

¶36

The point for consideration is, "Whether the defendant No.1/appellant is entitled to service benefits of late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi?"

¶37

What emerges from the contentions raised before this Court is that the alleged marriage of defendant No.1 with R.Tukaram Suryavamshi was void as the first marriage of R.Tukaram Suryavamshi with plaintiff No.1 was subsisting till the death of R.Tukaram Suryavamshi. Thus, appellant/defendant No.1 does not inherit the estate of late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi. This being the position, this Court does not find any error in the judgment and decree under appeal.

¶38

Admittedly, the proposed - appellant No.2 was not a party to the suit. Under these circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court would not

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12601-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2017

¶40

bind the proposed appellant No.2. If at all proposed appellant No.2 is the son of R.Tukaram Suryavamshi from defendant No.1, then, he has to establish his status as son of R.Tukaram Suryavamshi from defendant No.1 and thereafter, has to seek appropriate relief. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶41

It is made clear that the judgment and decree passed by this Court and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court shall not come in the way of proposed - appellant No.2 establishing his status as son of late R.Tukaram Suryavamshi from second wife. If such a claim is made in an appropriate proceeding, the same shall be considered without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned judgment and decree as well as this judgment.

¶42

Hence, the following:

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12601-DB MFA No. 8377 of 2017

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The appeal is dismissed .

¶46

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 in O.S.No.69/2014 on the file of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru are confirmed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt a Uma v. Smt.B.Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt a Uma v. Smt.B.Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kdpr Communications Vs M/S Mobitech Creations Private Limited

Shabnam Parveen Ahmad Vs Nil

Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shree Dharmarayaswamy and Dhrowpadamma Temple Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Mr Sanjay Ghosal Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation