1978 Supreme(Mad) 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Suryamurthy, J.
Jayalakshmi Ammal .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Lakshmi Ammal .....Respondent(s)
C.R.P.No. 1955 of 1975,
Decided On : 11 January 1978
B.Lakshminarayana Reddy, for petitioner.
R. Srinivasa Varadachari, for Respondent.
Claim of wife for P. F. amount not tenable.
Headnote:General Provident Fund (Madras) Rules-Rule 2 (1) (c) (i)-Nomination by subscriber for general provident fund-Subscribing nominating his sister as nominee-Said nomination accepted by concerned official-After death of subscriber wife filed claim for P. F. amount-Held, claim of wife not tenable.
2. This petition was resisted by the respondeat, who is the sister of Ramachandra Reddiar, inter alia on the ground referred to above, viz., that the petitioner has married Ramalinga Reddiar after leaving Ramachandra Reddiar, and that in any event, her living with Ramalinga Reddiar is adulterous.
3. The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Ramalinga Reddiar has married Jayalakshmi Animal. He also disbelieved the contention of the respondent that the revision petitioner has been living in adultery with Ramalinga Reddiar. These findings of fact by the learned District Munsif were dissented from by the learned District Judge who found that there was sufficient evidence to show “that the petitioner was not living with her husband during his lifetime and that she has been living with one Ramalinga Reddiar”. He relied on the evidence of R.W.1, R.W. 3, and R.W.4 to come to this conclusion.
4. The late Ramachandra Reddiar had executed a settlement deed (Ex.B-9) dated 9th May, 1971 in favour of his nephews Rajaram Reddiar and Omai Ramachandra Reddiar. In this document, the deceased Ramachandra Reddiar, had stated that he had no wife at that time. This would show that whether or not the revision petitioner married Ramalinga Reddiar validly, Ramachandra Reddiar no longer treated her as his wife when Ex. B-9 came into existence. The vaccination register to prove that a child by name Murugadoss was born to Jayalakshmi and Ramalinga Reddiar has also been filed. The oral evidence of R.W.5. coupled with the recitals in Ex. B-9 would suffice to prove the case of the respondent that the revision petitioner has been living in adultery with one Ramalinga Reddiar. An entry in Ex. B-8, a ledger maintained in Sri Lakshminarasimhasami Devasthanam, Tindivanam, for the payment of a sum of Rs. 10 at the time of the marriage of Jayalaskshmi with Ramalinga Reddiar as per the entry in Ex. B-7 the marriage register, further reinforces the case of the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that during the lifetime of Ramachandra Reddiar, there could be no valid marriage between Ramalinga Reddiar and Jayalakshmi and that the marriage between them, even if true, is not valid. The question whether the marriage was valid or not does not arise for the purpose of deciding the dispute in this case. There is no doubt about the fact that Jayalakshmi, the revision petitioner,was living in adultery with Ramalinga Reddiar. The learned District Judge was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has been living in adultery with Ramalinga Reddiar. I am constrained to come to the conclusion that Ramac