The validity of a marriage during the subsistence of a prior marriage and the entitlement to pension benefits for the legally wedded spouse.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C. P. C. has been filed by the plaintiff / appellant in the trial Court from the judgment and order dt. 13-8-1997.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that, the present plaintiff / appellant filed the suit for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased S. Narayanaswamy and she is entitled to receive the benefits of family pension and other monetary benefits of the deceased S. Narayana Swamy. She also prayed for a decree for injunction against the defendant No. 3 i. e. , the present respondent No. 1 prohibiting and restraining up her withdrawing any of aforesaid benefits. The defendants No. 1 and 2 to the suit namely, the Secretary of the Karnataka Electricity Board and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, filed joint written statement, whereas the 3rd defendant, who is present respondent No. 1, filed a separate written statement.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff / appellant asserted herself to be the legally wedded wife of Sri S. Narayana Swamy, an Assistant Lineman in the Karnataka Electricity Board, who had died on 28-1-1992. According to the plaintiff / appellant, she got two children from the wedlock with late Sri. S. Narayana Swamy namely Devaraj and Devarajeshwari. According to the plaintiff / appellant's case, the marriage between the plaintiff / appellant and deceased S. Narayana Swamy had taken place on 1-5-1977 and they lived as husband and wife. The plaintiff asserted that with defendant No. 3 Venkatalakshmamma, the deceased S. Narayana Swamy developed an illicit relationship sometimes in 1986 and she, under the guise thereof, is trying to claim share in monthly pension and other monetary benefits which are payable due to the death of Sri. S. Narayana Swamy and with the assistance of the Employees Union and officers, the defendant No. 3 got the records built up and is claiming half portion of the monthly pension and other benefits. So the plaintiff prayed that an injunction be issued against the defendant No. 3 i. e. , present respondent No. 1 that she be restrained from receiving or withdrawing any pensional benefits or retiral benefits.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 3 the contesting respondent, who is the respondent No. 1 before this Court, asserted herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased S. Narayana Swamy and alleged that her marriage was registered in the Sub-Registrar's office, copy of which has been produced. She further asserted that out of wedlock between her i. e. , the 3rd defendant who is present respondent No. 1 and the deceased Narayana Swamy, three children were born namely Shilpa, Sheela and Shashi. The defendant No. 3 asserted that before filing of the suit, the defendant/respondent No. 1 and the plaintiff received in equal proportion of one half each the retiral benefits and pension of Narayana Swamy and withdrew with consent of each other half share each and this consent was brought among the two, i. e. , between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant i. e. , appellant and the 1st respondent, by the intervention of the elderly members of the village and because she also learnt that the plaintiff was the kept mistress of her late husband. The defendant stated that the suit at the instance of the plaintiff was not maintainable and further that suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

( 5 ) THE trial Court framed the following issues :-1 ). Whether the plaintiff has proved that she alone is entitled to receive the monthly pension and other benefits of the deceased S. Narayanaswamy ?2 ). Whether the suit for bare injunction is maintainable in law ?3 ). Whether the suit is not maintainable as contended by the 3rd defendant in para 11 (d) of her written statement ?4 ). Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?5 ). Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?6 ). What order and what decree ?an additional issue was also framed by the trial Court. 1 ). Whether the plainti