SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.M. KHAZI, JJ.
Smt. Srilakshmi, W/o. N. Sudarshan - Appellant
Versus
Sri. N. Sudarshan, S/o. Late Narasimhaswamy and Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2908 Of 2016 (FC)
Decided On : 16-04-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Pratheep K.C.
For the Respondent: Sri. Rajashekar.

The judgment established that the plaintiff, as a legally wedded wife, had no legal right to restrain the defendant from receiving pension and terminal benefits, which were his self-acquired property.

Headnote:

Family Court Act - Permanent Injunction - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 19(1), Section 28 - The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [PERMANENT INJUNCTION] - [FAMILY COURT] - [Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 r/w Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - The court discussed the legal rights of the plaintiff as a legally wedded wife, her entitlement to nomination in the service record, and the contingent nature of her claim to family pension and terminal benefits. The court emphasized that the pension and terminal benefits of the defendant were his self-acquired property, and the plaintiff had no right to restrain him from receiving the same or to claim permanent injunction against the disbursement of such benefits. The judgment highlighted the speculative nature of the plaintiff's claim and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a legally wedded wife, sought permanent injunction to restrain the disbursement of retirement benefits to the defendant until he made arrangements for her residence and maintenance. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the plaintiff's appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff had no legal right to restrain the defendant from receiving pension and terminal benefits, emphasizing that such benefits were the defendant's self-acquired property. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's legal right to claim nomination in the defendant's pensionary documents, sufficiency of court fee, jurisdiction of the court, and entitlement to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's claim was speculative and contingent on the death of the defendant, emphasizing that she had no right to prevent the defendant from receiving pension and terminal benefits during his lifetime.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and it was affirmed that in the event of the defendant's death, the plaintiff could claim family pension in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 16.01.2016 in O.S.No.65/2012 on the file of Prl.Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the suit filed by her came to be dismissed, appellant/plaintiff filed this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 r/w Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as per their rank in the original suit.

3. In the said suit, plaintiff sought relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendant Nos.2 to 5 from disbursing retirement benefits to defendant No.1, till he makes arrangements for the residence and maintenance of plaintiff.

4. Briefly stated, the averments of the plaintiff are to the following effect:-

(a) Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, their marriage having been solemnised on 13.06.1986. After marriage, they led a happy married life. However, they are not having any issues. In view of dowry harassment, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant No.1. Since he deserted and neglected her, she filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C in C.Mis.62/1999 which came to be allowed on 03.07.2001. Plaintiff’s petition for enhancement of maintenance in C.Mis.155/2005 also came to be allowed on 06.12.2008

(b) Since defendant No.1 was a defaulter, plaintiff filed petition for recovery of maintenance in C.Mis.126/2011 under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which came to be allowed on 06.08.2012.

(c) Defendant No.1 is having illicit relationship with one Manjula. He is working in the Health Department. Being the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, plaintiff is having a legal right to claim the status of nomination and pensionery benefits of defendant No.1. He is making attempts to change the nomination in his service records to deprive plaintiff from claiming retirement benefits. After his retirement, defendant No.1 is going to receive the monetary benefits from the office of defendant Nos.2 to 5. Hence, plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction against defendant Nos.2 to 5 from disbursing the retirement benefits till defendant No.1 makes arrangements for the residence and maintenance of plaintiff.

(d) After due service of summons, defendant No.1 has appeared and filed written statement to the following effect:

(i) Except the relationship with plaintiff, all other averments are denied. He has averred that he has been acquitted in C.C.No.1191/1999, which was a case registered for dowry harassment. The maintenance amount awarded is enhanced. Except claiming maintenance amount, plaintiff is not having any legal right to claim nomination in his service records. He is having a right to nominate any person of his choice as the nominee in service records.

(ii) Defendant No.1 alone is entitled to receive the retirement benefits. Since, the marriage between the defendant No.1 and plaintiff is subsisting, plaintiff has a right to claim only maintenance from defendant No.1 and no other rights. This Court is not having jurisdiction to try the suit and prays to dismiss the same.

5. Based on these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. “Whether the plaintiff proves that she is having legal right to claim all status of nomination in the pensionery documents of the first defendant?

2. Whether the court fee is not sufficient as contended in the written statement? (treated as preliminary issue)

3. Whether the defendant proves that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit (treated as preliminary issue)?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief as prayed?

5. What order or decree?”

6. During the trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked. Defendant did not lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court dismissed the suit by answering the issues as under:

“Issue No.1: Negative

Issue No.2 & 3 : Do not survive for Consideration

Issue No.4: Negative

Issue No.5: As p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top