Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 946
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Shaik Jani Begum - Appellant
Versus
Shaik Sirajunnisa Begum @ Surya Kumari and others - Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 467 of 2015
Decided On : 17-08-2015
For the Appellant : Syed Khadar Mastan
For the Respondents: K.S. Murhty
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 379, 344,494 and 447 - Mahomedan Law Section 250, 255, 252,39, sub-section (6) of Section 39, and 344 - Indian Succession Act - Section 372 - Plaintiff in on the file of III Additional District Judge preferred this appeal against the judgment - Aforesaid suit was filed declaring that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of and to direct defendants 4 to 8 to pay the death benefits and other benefits of including family pension, arrears of salary gratuity - Permanent injunction restraining defendants from withdrawing the death benefits and other benefits - Court dismissed the suit assigning various reasons - Alleging that she is legally wedded wife of and their marriage was performed Guntur District as per Muslim customs - She is living with Prior to her marriage and the 1st defendant loved each other - Defendant is a and she converted into religion and married as per Muslim Law - During their wedlock - defendant used to pick up petty quarrels with and often used to go to her parents house at Village – Held, Appellant is the legally wedded wife she is not entitled to withdraw the amount, in view of nomination of the 1st respondent to receive the death benefits the appellant is entitled to share in the death benefits payable on account of death of and also the amount payable under F.D.Rs. lying with the respondents Accordingly - Judgment and decree passed by the III Additional District Judge are erroneous and not supported by any legal reasoning and it is totally in ignorance of Muslim law and the Rules governing Succession - Appeal is allowed.
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.145 of 2011 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 23.03.2015.
2. The aforesaid suit was filed declaring that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of Mahaboob Subhani (hereinafter referred to, as ‘Subhani’); and to direct defendants 4 to 8 to pay the death benefits and other benefits of Subhani including family pension, arrears of salary, gratuity, earned leave salary, Provident Fund, Group Insurance, F.D.R. bearing No. 839941161 for Rs.1,65,000/- and F.D.R. bearing No. 796426736 for Rs.1,50,000/- at Indian Bank, Peddapalli Branch and F.D.R. bearing No. 855874352 for Rs.1,60,000/- and F.D.R. bearing No. 741641384 for Rs.1,90,000/- at Indian Bank, Patnam Bazar Branch, Guntur; and to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from withdrawing the death benefits and other benefits of Subhani. The trial Court dismissed the suit assigning various reasons.
3. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S.No.145 of 2011 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, will be adopted throughout the judgment.
4. Plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid relief alleging that she is legally wedded wife of Subhani and their marriage was performed on 24.11.2007 at Sangadigunta, Guntur District, as per Muslim customs. Since then, she is living with Subhani at Karimnagar. Prior to her marriage with Subhani, Subhani and the 1st defendant loved each other. The 1st defendant is a Hindu and she converted into Islam religion and married Subhani on 06.06.1982 as per Muslim Law at Mangalagiri, Guntur District. During their wedlock, 1st defendant blessed with two male children, who are defendants 2 and 3. The marriage of 1st defendant with Subhani is not a valid marriage.
5. The 1st defendant used to pick up petty quarrels with Subhani and often used to go to her parents house at Prathipadu Village. In spite of several requests made by Subhani, she did not turn up. In the year 2001, the 1st defendant intentionally and voluntarily left the company of Subhani and started living separately with her sons at Peddapalli of Karimnagar District. Mediation was held in that regard, but she refused to join with Subhani. Subhani was suffering from heart problem. On 17.08.2007 Subhani sent a legal notice requesting the 1st defendant to come and join with him, but, she did not turn up. Having vexed with the attitude of the 1st defendant, Subhani gave divorce to her on 05.09.2007.
6. After divorce with the 1st defendant, Subhani married the plaintiff on 24.11.2007 as per Muslim Law. On 09.07.2010, Subhani fell down on a road due to heart attack, he admitted in the hospital for treatment, but the Doctors who examined him, declared as dead. The hospital authorities handed over the dead body of Subhani to the plaintiff, who in turn, intimated the same to the relatives of Subhani, Tahsildar of Dharmaram, Revenue authorities and defendants 1 to 3. But, defendants 1 to 3 did not come to the hospital to see the dead body of Subhani. The Tahsildar, Dharmaram, paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff towards funeral expenses.
7. Defendants 1 to 3 bore grudge against the plaintiff, lodged a false criminal case in Crime No. 13 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 447 IPC. But, after investigation, police referred the matter as ‘false’. With the intervention of defendants 1 to 3, the matter was compromised by entering into an agreement. After agreement, defendants 1 to 3 intentionally violated the conditions of agreement and played fraud and taken money from the Indian Bank by submitting Xerox copies of Fixed Deposit Bonds. While denying the status of the plaintiff as wife of Subhani, defendants 1 to 3 claimed the death benefits and other benefits of Subhani as legal heirs. Hence, the suit.
8. The 1st defendant resisted her claim by filing written statement
