Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2953
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
N. Kalaiselvi & Another
Versus
The General Manager, Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Others
W.P.Nos.38519 of 2004 and 5984 of 2006
Decided on : 18-08-2008
For the Petitioners:Ms. S. Geetha, P. Jagadeesan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Raghavan, P. Muthukumar, G.A., R3, Ms. S. Geetha, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of the status of a claimant as a legally wedded spouse and the entitlement to terminal benefits involves adjudication on disputed questions of fact and law, which must be resolved in the civil court.
Headnote:
Marriage Dispute - Terminal Benefits - Tamil Nadu Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules, 1967 - Rule 3 - G.O.Ms.No.1568 - Succession Certificate - Nominee - Civil Court - Article 226 of Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the entitlement to the terminal benefits of the deceased Muthusamy. The daughter and the second wife of Muthusamy both claimed to be the legal heirs and sought the disbursement of the terminal benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the determination of the status of the second wife as the legally wedded wife of Muthusamy was a disputed question of fact and law, which could not be resolved in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the parties to approach the civil court to establish their rights.
Issues: The main issue was the dispute over the entitlement to the terminal benefits, with conflicting claims from the daughter and the second wife of the deceased Muthusamy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of the status of the second wife as the legally wedded wife involved adjudication on disputed questions of fact and law, which could only be resolved in the civil court.
Final Decision: The court directed the bank to disburse 25% of the terminal benefits to the daughter of the deceased, with the remaining benefits to be kept in a fixed deposit until the civil suit determined the rightful claimant.
Kalavathi, daughter of Late Muthusamy has filed W.P.No.38519/2004 to disburse entire terminal benefits payable towards death of late Muthusamy.
2. W.P.No.5984/2006 has been filed by the petitioner, wife of late Muthusamy to consider her representation dated 011. 2005 and to pay the terminal benefits of Muthusamy in her favour.
3. Since common points are involved in both writ petitions, both writ petitions were heard together and shall stand disposed by this common order. For convenience, parties are referred in their rank in W.P.No.5984/2006.
4. Late Muthusamy was employed in Salem District Co-operative Bank. Muthusamy died on 07.09.2003. According to 3rd respondent, she being the daughter is entitled to the entire terminal benefits. It is the further case of the 3rd respondent that in S.O.P.No.15/2004 succession certificate was issued to the effect that she and Pappathiammal, mother of Muthusamy, are the legal heirs. Earlier the 3rd respondent has filed W.P.No.34585/2003 and obtained directions from the court regarding disbursement of terminal benefits.
5. Case of petitioner in W.P.No.5984/2006 is that after the death of first wife, Muthusamy married her on 12.03.1995 and that she was living with Muthusamy as legally wedded wife. According to the petitioner, she being wife of Muthusamy, she is the legal heir of Muthusamy and therefore, she is entitled to the terminal benefits. Petitioner had sent a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent on 011. 2005 and the petitioner seeks consideration of her representation and disbursement of terminal benefits to her.
6. Heard both.
7. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Ms. S. Geetha contended that the petitioner has not produced any document to prove her marriage with Muthusamy. It was further contended that the registration certificate filed by the petitioner issued by Village Administrative Officer is not a reliable one. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent further submitted that she being the daughter is entitled to the entire terminal benefits.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Jagadeesan would submit that petitioner has produced prima facie material to prove the marriage by producing the register maintained by the village Administrative Officer and on that basis marriage must be deemed to have been proved. The learned counsel would further submit that suitable directions are to be given to the 2nd respondent for disbursement of due share of terminal benefits to the 2nd respondent.
.9. Muthusamy died on 07.09.2003. The Tahsildar, Namakkal, had issued legal heirship certificate that Pappathiammal(Mother) and Kalaiselvi (Daughter) are the legal heirs of Muthusamy. On Petition filed by 3rd respondent, District Court, Namakkal had issued succession certificate in S.O.P.No.15/2004 to the effect that Pappathiammal and 3rd respondent Kalai Selvi are the legal heirs of late Muthusamy.
10. The petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of Muthusamy and that the marriage was solemnised on 12.03.1995. The petitioner has produced the extract of Marriage Register maintained by the Village Administrative Officer, which indicates that the date of marriage of the petitioner and Muthusamy was on 12.03.1995.
11. Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules, 1967 was amended by G.O.Ms.No.1568, Home (Courts-IV), 18th November 1998, appointing all the Village Administrative Officers of Revenue Department as Marriage Registrars within their respective jurisdiction for the purpose of the said rules. The amendment Rule was notified by Gazette notification on 212. 1998.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Marriage Register maintained by Village Administrative Officer in his official course is a strong piece of evidence proving the marriage and the court has to take note of the entries in the marriage register.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent raised doubts regarding the entries m
