The jurisdiction of Family Courts is limited to disputes between married couples; without a declaration of marital status, claims for pensionary benefits and nominations are not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2015 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.183/2010. This is the plaintiff’s appeal. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.2 to 4, who are the officers of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, KPTCL, from disbursing pensionery benefits to the 1^st defendant that is Sri. Shakaregowda, on his retirement in the month of February, 2011. Further, the relief of mandatory injunction was sought directing the 1^st defendant to enter the name of the plaintiff as the nominee in his service register. Another relief was sought for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 (officers of KPTCL) to enter her name as a nominee in the service register of 1^st defendant. Yet another relief of mandatory injunction was sought directing the defendant Nos.2 to 5 to disburse 50% of the pensionery benefits of 1^st defendant to her.

3. The plaintiff claims to be the legally wedded wife of the 1^st defendant who was working as employee of the KPTCL. It appears that a series of litigation and disputes exist between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. The name of the plaintiff not having been entered in the service register of the first defendant to receive pensionery benefits was sought to be challenged by way of filing of the aforesaid suit.

4. The 4^th defendant in whose office the first defendant was working, stated that the first defendant had already been transferred from his company and hence the suit had become infructuous as the relief sought for in the suit could not be done at his office. The same was the defence of the first defendant.

5. The 1^st defendant further stated that he married one K. Sunila, the sixth defendant in the case, on 22.10.1978 as per Hindu Customs and from their wedlock a male child was born on 07.02.1980. She is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and the plaintiff cannot claim any pensionery benefits from his employment. He is under no obligation or duty to include the name of the plaintiff as a nominee in his service registers. She is not entitled for 50% of the pension benefits and she cannot enforce any rights, and she has no legal rights at all to claim the same. He had already nominated the name of the 6^th defendant for pensionary benefits.

6. The defendant No. 1 contended that he filed a suit OS No. 16/1993 before the Civil Judge, Ramanagara, against his father, sister and others for partition and possession of his share in respect of the properties at Kanakapura and got 14 acres to his share and the same was given to him in the compromise petition filed in the said suit, which property, was, in turn given to the Plaintiff (yielding income of 5 lakhs to 6 lakhs per year) in lieu of the maintenance to her wherein the understanding was that she shall not have any claim over the salary and pension benefits of the Plaintiff. He admitted that his son Santhosh has filed a partition suit bearing OS No.73/2009. The defendant No. 1 had filed OS No.363/2009 for declaration that this plaintiff had no right to claim maintenance from his salary and further that a Criminal Misc.No.238/2008 which was filed by the Plaintiff against him under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, had been dismissed by the Court. The plaintiff had got 14 acres of land to her share and got the mutation done in her name and was in possession of the same and later s