The main legal point established is that under Rule 54(7)(a)(i) of Central Civil Service Pension Rules and Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the legally wedded wife and legitimate children are entitled to receive family pension, while the second wife is not entitled to family pension under the Hindu Marriage Act.

S. VIMALA, J.

1. Who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased-Sairam whether it is the first plaintiff or the first defendant is the main issue to be decided. Who are entitled to receive the pensionary benefits of the deceased Sairam i.e., whether the plaintiffs 1 to 3 (the wife and the children) or the defendants 1 and 3 (the second wife and the children) is the hot issue being tried from 1996.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.8 of 1996 praying for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that the second and third plaintiffs are the legitimate sons of the deceased-Sairam and for a consequential order of injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right whatsoever over the estate of the deceased-Sairam.

3. The brief facts of the case:

The marriage between the plaintiff and the deceased- Sairam took place on 16.2.1983 as per Ex.A1 (Ex.A1-Marriage Invitation of Mr.B.Sairam with T.Krishnaveni). Immediately after the marriage, she got conceived and delivered the first child i.e., the second plaintiff-Karthik. As she was ill-treated, she was constrained to live in her parents' house and she filed the petition for maintenance in respect of the second plaintiff-Karthik in M.C.No.232 of 1986 and the Court by the order (Ex.A2) dated 18.8.1987, awarded a sum of Rs.200/- per month for the maintenance of minor child-Karthik from the date of petition. i.e., 15.12.1986. In-between, the first plaintiff lived with the deceased on the eve of the marriage of her brother for a short while. The plaintiff delivered the second child i.e., the third plaintiff on 23.12.1986 (Ex.B4 Birth certificate of Muralidharan). Again, the deceased deserted her without any reasonable cause. The deceased was working as Foreman in the Combat Vehicle Research and Development and Establishment at Avadi, Chennai. The first plaintiff came to know that he was terminated from service on account of his incompetency in the service. The deceased died on 17.11.1995 (Ex.A3-Death Certificate of B.Sairam, the Deceased), leaving behind the legal representatives i.e., the plaintiffs (Ex. B5 – Legal Heirs Certificate). The first plaintiff came to know that the first defendant was making attempt to receive the salary benefits, which accrued on account of the death of the deceased from the employer of the deceased. Therefore, she issued notice to the first defendant as well as to the employer of the deceased (Ex.A6 – Office copy of the notice). The notice issued to the first defendant was returned unserved (Ex.A7). The employer of the deceased gave reply under Ex.A8 stating that all pensionary benefits of Sri.B.Sairam, Ex-Foreman of this establishment have been paid to the individual as per the records available in the establishment, his wife Smt.Devaki being his nominee. Therefore, the first plaintiff was compelled to file the suit seeking for declaration.

4. The claim was resisted by the defendants on the following contentions:

a. The first plaintiff has to prove her status as the wife and also the status of P2 and P3 as that of the children of the deceased.

b. The defendants are legally entitled to receive the benefits accrued on the death of the deceased.

c. The first defendant is the nominee as per the official records maintained by the employer of the deceased.

d. The marriage between the first defendant and deceased took place on 2.2.1987. Out of the wedlock, two children were born i.e., second defendant was born on 12.12.87 and the third defendant was born on 6.8.90. e. When the deceased was terminated from service and when he was also suffering from the disease, the defendants alone were taking care of him. During those time, the defendants have never seen the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed in order to grab the service benefits of the deceased.

5. Before the lower Court the first plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant has