The petitioner failed to establish his entitlement to family pension due to lack of evidence supporting his legal marriage to the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, claiming to be the legally wedded husband of one deceased Prasanna V., has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Exts.P12 to P14 proceedings issued by respondents 3 and 4 and also seeking a direction to respondents1 to 4 to restore the family pension originally granted to him.

2. The petitioner claims that he married the afore Prasanna on 06.06.1984 as seen from Ext.P1 certificate stated to be issued under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He contends that his wife Prasanna was working with the 1^st respondent University as a Lab Assistant and that she retired on 31.03.2015. After her retirement, the petitioner points out that his wife was being paid pension and ultimately on 21.04.2016, she passed away. Insofar as the deceased had nominated the petitioner, in his status as her husband, for the purpose of pension, etc., he contends that the family pension was sanctioned to him as seen from Ext.P6 dated 20.05.2017. However, the petitioner contends that the 5^th respondent herein who is none other than his daughter born out of the wedlock with the afore Prasanna submitted a complaint (Ext.P7) to the University that the petitioner had a legally wedded wife and children other than the afore Prasanna and so he is not entitled to receive family pension. On the basis of Ext.P7 complaint, Ext.P8 was issued by the 3^rd respondent directing the petitioner to produce evidence to show that he is legally married to the deceased Prasanna and also to produce the Legal Heirship certificate. The petitioner contends that ultimately by Ext.P12 dated 27.05.2019, the 3^rd respondent cancelled the family pension sanctioned to the petitioner. By Ext.P13, the 3^rd respondent sanctioned the family pension to the 6^th respondent (son of the petitioner and deceased Prasanna). This is followed with Ext.P14 issued by the 4^th respondent directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.8,44,580/- representing the terminal benefits and pension received by him.

3. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Exts.P12 to P14 proceedings.

4. I have heard Sri.D.Kishore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Harish R. Menon, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and Sri.Akshay Venu for Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the University.

5. Sri.Kishore the learned counsel would submit that:

i. The petitioner was the legally wedded husband of deceased Prasanna.

ii. There was no marriage subsisting at the point of time when he married Prasanna as averred in paragraph8 of the writ petition.

iii. The petitioner is the nominee for pension and other benefits as seen from the pension papers submitted by the deceased.

iv. In the light of the afore, if respondents 5 and 6 claim that the petitioner had another wife and children born in that marriage when he married their mother, the said respondents have to approach the civil court with a suit claiming appropriate declarations under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

v. With reference to Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872, he contends that the burden of proof is on respondents 5 and 6.

vi. O.S.No.233 of 2016 was already filed by him before the civil court for partitioning the properties and hence, the University should have waited for the outcome of the said suit.

6. Per contra, Sri.Harish R. Menon, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, would contend that:

i. The petitioner was already married and it is on the face of the afore, Ext.P1 certificate is to be noticed.

ii. In the light of the afore, the marriage, if any, with deceased Prasanna was a nullity.

iii. Upon instructions received, he submits that the petitioner never cared to look after the family, especially the children after the death of Prasanna.

iv. The petitioner’s only aim was to claim the benefits of the family pension.

v. The Legal Heirship certificate, as regards the deceased Prasanna, is issued in favour of respondents 5 and 6 alone.

vi. On the