Point of law: Presumptions of life and death - For a declaration as to the legitimacy of petitioners 2 and 3 also as per Sec.7(e) of the Family Courts Act, a Family Court is the competent court - In a proceeding instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India this Court has intrinsic limitations in resolving the issues relevant in the facts and circumstance of this case

JUDGMENT :

K.BABU, J.

The challenge in this Original Petition, filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, is against Ext.P4 order dated 22-06-2017 in O.A No.958/2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

2. The prayers in the original petition are as follows:

(I) Set aside Ext.P4 order as illegal, unjust and unreasonable.

(ii) Direct respondents to disburse the benefits due to the petitioners, being the legal heirs of a deceased Sreedharan, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.

(iii) Issue such other writ, direction or order as is deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Heard Smt.K.P.Santhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The petitioners had filed O.A No.958/2015 with the following prayers:

(i) Direct respondents to disburse the benefits due to the applicants, being the legal heirs of a deceased Sreedharan, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.

(ii) Issue such other writ, direction or order as is deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. By order dated 22-06-2017 the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for appropriate declaration, if so advised.

6. The petitioners pleaded the following:-The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Sreedharan, who was employed in the Indian Railways. Petitioners 2 & 3 are the issues born to petitioner No.1 in her wedlock with Sreedharan. Sreedharan obtained voluntary retirement from the Railways on 17-12-1987. He has been missing since 12-03-1998. A complaint under the caption “man missing” was lodged at the Malayinkeezhu Police Station on the basis of which FIR No.194/98 was registered. The petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of Sreedharan. The petitioner No.1 filed O.P No.246/2003 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram impleading Sreedharan as the sole respondent and obtained a declaration, that she is his legally wedded wife, by way of Anx.A3 judgment. Sreedharan had married one Kamalamma on 06-09-1962 and two children were born in that wedlock. The marriage between Kamalamma and Sreedharan was dissolved by way of a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 23-12-1992 in O.P No.512/92. The petitioners filed O.P No.681/2004, impleading Southern Railway and its Chief Accounts Officer as respondents, and prayed for releasing the retirement benefits of Sreedharan to them in the capacity as his legal heirs. By way of judgment dated 11-04-2007, the Family Court declined the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners holding that there was no valid marriage between petitioner No.1 and Sreedharan. The petitioners filed Mat.Appeal No.455/2007 before this Court. As per Anx.R2 judgment dated 02-07-2008 this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for seeking necessary declarations. The judgment dated 02-07-2008 in Mat.Appeal No.455/2007 was reviewed in R.P No.313/2010 and this Court permitted the petitioners to approach Family Court instead of Civil Court. The petitioner No.1 had filed O.A No.400/2009 before the Tribunal and the same was closed on 18-02-2010 permitting her to approach the Tribunal afresh. The petitioner No.1 filed O.A No.829/201o, in which the Tribunal directed the petitioners to approach the Civil Court. The petitioners then filed O.P (Suc) No.7/2012 before the Sub Court, Trivandrum, which was disposed of by way of Anx.A6 judgment dated 20-08-2014, holding that the O.P was not maintainable in view of the pleadings of the petitioners that they were claiming benefits by way of testamentary succession. The petitioners again approached the Tribunal and prayed for disbursing the retirement benefits of Sreedharan to them.

7. The respondents set up the following pleadings:-The petitioner No.1 cannot claim the status of a legally wedded