The legal effect of nominations in service records does not confer ownership or override the legal marital status established, as jurisdiction of Family Court extends to marital conflict resolutions.

JUDGMENT:

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.

The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant who was arrayed as Respondent No.2 before the Family Court (hereinafter referred to as “the employer”), assailing the Order and Decree dated 05.06.2014 passed in F.C.O.P. No. 242 of 2011 on the file of Family Court, at Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”). The said F.C.O.P. instituted by the Respondent No.1 herein (the original Petitioner), against the appellant and Respondent No.2 herein, seeking declaration and mandatory injunction, came to be allowed.

2. Heard Sri L.Ravichander learned senior counsel representing Sri Sarang J.Afzulpurkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri M.Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R.Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

4. The petitioner instituted F.C.O.P. No. 242 of 2011 under Section 7(1)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short “the Act, 1984”), seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Ch.Venkateshwara Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died on 25.06.2010 while working as a Technician in the unit of the respondent No.2-employer at Visakhapatnam and for a consequential mandatory injunction directing the respondent No.2- employer, to release the terminal and pensionary benefits to her.

5. The petitioner stated that marriage between her and the deceased was solemnized in the month of February, 1980 and that out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a son and a daughter. The son predeceased the deceased and the daughter is married and settled.

6. After the death of her husband due to kidney failure, the petitioner performed his last rites and approached the Respondent No.2 seeking settlement and release of terminal and pensionary benefits. She was however, informed that all such benefits had already been claimed and disbursed to Respondent No.1, who had projected herself as the wife of the deceased on the basis of entries made in his service records.

7. The petitioner asserts that she alone is the lawfully wedded wife and sole Class-I legal heir of late Ch.Venkateshwara Rao. It is contended that the employer, without conducting any lawful verification or enquiry into marital status of the deceased, wrongly disbursed the amounts to the Respondent No.1, who has no legal entitlement thereto.

8. Despite issuing a legal notice dated 17.09.2010 and production of documentary proof evidencing her marriage with the deceased, the employer insisted upon a declaration from a competent Court before acting further, thereby, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition seeking appropriate declaration and consequential directions.

9. In response to the averments made in the original petition, the Respondent No.2-employer, filed a Counter denying all the material allegations and contending that the relief claimed by the petitioner does not fall within the scope of Section 7(b) or Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and that therefore, the learned Family Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It was further contended that the petitioner having failed to invoke Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or to initiate proceedings under Sections 494 and 495 IPC during the lifetime of late Ch.Venkateshwara Rao, was