Partly allowed

B.S.Veda Bala , Vani v. Koduru Arunasree

Telangana HC25 Apr 2013CMSA/7/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a second appeal regarding succession compensation and pension benefits. The court decided that while the nominee could distribute the Provident Fund equally due to cohabitation, the family pension must be paid exclusively to the senior surviving widow rather than being apportioned.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous second appeal is allowed in part. Pension shall be paid to the appellant alone. The other apportionment granted by the Court below regarding Provident Fund is confirmed.

B.S.Veda Bala , Vani Vs Koduru Arunasree — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

C.M.S.A.No.7 OF 2009

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appeal has been filed against the judgment in A.S.No.13 of 2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

¶5

2. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.16 of 1997 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

¶6

3. The application was filed for revocation of the Succession Certificate granted in O.P.No.67 of 1990. The petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of one Koduru Benarji and the marriage was performed on 21.05.1975 at Veerulapadu village. The deceased was working as a batter man in Central Telegraphic Office at Vijayawada and he expired on 29.09.1989. Two years before his death, there were misunderstandings and the petitioner was deserted. The petitioner claimed the pensionary benefits and also compassionate appointment. The petitioner applied for issuance of Succession Certificate in O.P.No.14 of 1991 against the 1^st respondent and it was disclosed that the 1^st respondent has obtained a Succession Certificate in O.P.No.67 of 1990 fraudulently and suppressing the right of the petitioner. O.P.No.14 of 1991 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as no steps were taken for revoking the Succession Certificate in O.P.No.67 of 1990. Hence the present application.

¶7

4. The respondents have filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition and contending that it is only intended to harass her. They further contended that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶8

5. The Court below after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased and also noticed that the deceased made nomination in the records showing that the 1^st respondent is wife. The Court below came to the opinion that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife, though the 1^st respondent might have lived with the deceased and consequently recalled the order in O.P.No.67 of 1990. As against that order, A.S.No.13 of 2000 was preferred and the II Additional District Judge at Vijayawada allowed the appeal in part holding that both the parties are entitiled for the pension and other death-cumservice benefits of the deceased. Aggrieved by that, the present Second Appeal is filed by the petitioner.

¶9

6. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

¶10

Under the provision of General Provident Fund Act when the Nominee alone is entitled for the benefits of the deceased, whether the Court can apportion the benefits between the appellant and respondents treating it as estate of the deceased?

¶11

The following additional substantial question of law was also framed:

¶12

Whether between the two wives, both of them are entitled for pension or only senior widow is entitled for

¶13

pension as per the Pension Scheme?

¶14

7. POINTS:

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the absence of marriage, the Court below erred in holding that the 2^nd respondent is daughter of late Benarji and that the 1^st respondent is entitled to the benefits.

¶16

8. As can be seen from the judgment of the Court below it has not accepted the legal marriage between the deceased and the 1^st respondent, but, however, drawn an inference of long cohabitation and granted equal apportionment with the appellant herein. It was also noticed by the Court below that the nominee is only a trustee to withdraw the sums, therefore apportioned the amount.

¶17

9. Evidently, so far as the pension is concerned, the Court has to consider the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. As per clause 16 note, it was provided that when there are two or more widows family pension shall be payable to the eldest surviving widow. On her death, it will be payable to the next surviving widow, if any. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the pension shall be exclusively payable to the appellant only since she was married earlier and there is no divorce and consequently the order of the Court below is not correct. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. When the appellant is the 1^st wife and senior widow, the order of the Court below in apportioning the pension is not legal. So also there is no provision for payment of pension to a daughter, who was not born out of lawful wedlock, it only applies to legally adopted children.

¶18

10. So far as the payment of Provident Fund etc., is concerned, Section 61 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 provides for nomination and the nominee has got right to distribute the amounts. Evidently, a nomination can be made only in favour of the family member. Consequently, the question of the 1^st respondent being a family member does not arise as she is not the legally wedded wife. But, this is a social legislature for the benefit of the family. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the deceased and the 1^st respondent lived together and in fact, the deceased nominated the 1^st respondent as the person entitled to receive the fund. Evidently, when the fund is meant for the family, it is meant for the benefit of all and no exclusive right can be claimed by the 1^st respondent. In fact, the Supreme Court has also considered for widening of the definition of wife to provide maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taking into consideration the long living relationship between the parties.

¶19

11. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I find that the judgment of the Court below is to be modified to the extent of pension and the pension shall be paid to the appellant alone and the other apportionment granted by the Court below is confirmed.

¶20

12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶21

_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶22

Date: 25.04.2013 INL

B.S.Veda Bala , Vani v. Koduru Arunasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S.Veda Bala , Vani v. Koduru Arunasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Agricultural Co-Op. Vs M/s Sri Pattabhi Rama Traders

D.V. Satish Kumar Vs Smt. D.v.Nagamani

Bhimavarapu Municipal Council Vs Motupalli Satyanarayana Murthy

M/s Sri Raja Rajeshwara Finance and Investments Ltd, (in Liqn) Vs -

The Official Liquidator, Vs -

Jindal Steel Tubes Limited Vs The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board