THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA A.S. No.326 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This Appeal Suit is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.2002 in O.S.No.54 of 2000 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The said O.S. was filed to declare the first plaintiff as legally wedded wife, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 as legitimate children of late Divakala Sivasankara Rao, but the same was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as ‘appellants’ and ‘respondents’ as arrayed in this Appeal Suit. 3. It is the case of the appellants that the first appellant is the legally wedded wife, and appellants 2 and 3 are the legitimate children of Divakala Sivasankara Rao who worked as Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and he died on 24.2.2000 due to ill-health. The first respondent is claiming to be the wife of the deceased. The second and third respondents are father and mother of the deceased. The fourth respondent is the Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation from which the deceased had taken two insurance policies. The first respondent gave complaints to Mandal Revenue Officer, the officials of APSRTC, and the officials of the Life Insurance Corporation against the first appellant claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. The marriage between the first respondent and the deceased did not take place. There is no registration certificate for their marriage. The first appellant and the deceased belong to Scheduled Caste community. The first appellant was given Rs.1,000/- by the officials of APSRTC towards funeral expenses of the deceased. The first appellant approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for legal heir certificate, but the Mandal Revenue Officer did not issue legal heir certificate as the first respondent raised objection. The Mandal Revenue Officer advised her to approach the court. Hence, she filed the suit. 4. On the other hand, the case of the first respondent is that she is legally wedded wife of late Divakala Sivasanakra Rao. Her marriage was performed on 3.7.1996 and out of wedlock, a daughter was born, who is aged 3 years by the time of filing the written statement. They lived at Gudlavanipalem, near Sagar Nagar, Visakhapatnam. The deceased- Divakala Sivasankara Rao took two Life Insurance Policies from the fourth respondent and in those policies, the first respondent’s name mentioned as a ‘nominee’. She was also mentioned as the wife of the deceased. The first appellant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased. In order to grab the death benefits of the deceased, the first appellant forged the documents and filed the false suit. The first respondent filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for legal heir certificate and due to false complaint given by the first appellant, the authorities are unable to give the legal heir certificate. The APSRTC authorities are not able to give the death benefits to the first respondent as a false complaint was given by the first appellant to them. 5. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the court below has framed the following issues for consideration: “i. Whether the first plaintiff (first appellant herein) is the legally wedded wife and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are the legitimate children of the deceased-Divakala Sivasankara Rao? ii.To what relief?” 6 On behalf of the appellants, first appellant and four others were examined as PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, first respondent and three others were examined as DWs 1 to 4 and Exs.B.1 to B.12 were marked. 7. The court below after taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence brought on record as well as factual and legal aspects of the matter, dismissed O.S.No.54 of 2000 on the ground that the first appellant failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife and appellants 2 and 3 are the legitimate children of the deceased- Divakala Sivasanakara Rao. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the court below failed to see that there is a consistent evidence to show that the marriage of the first appellant and the deceased was performed in the year 1988 and that the court below ought to have seen that the deceased married first appellant in the year 1988 and they have two children prior to the so-called marriage between the first respondent and the deceased. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the court below has given cogent and convincing reasons while dismissing O.S.No.54 of 2000 and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference from this court. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arises for consideration before this court is whether the first appellant has established that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased? 11. The evidence of PW.1 is that late Divakala Sivasankara Rao was her husband. They lived together along with their two children. He died on 24.2.2000 while working as APSRTC Driver. He died due to ill-health. After the death of her husband, the APSRTC authorities have paid Rs.1,000/- to her towards funeral expenses. Her husband got two life insurance policies. To claim death benefits of her husband and insurance policies’ amount, she approached the revenue authorities for issuance of legal heir certificate and at that time she was informed that first respondent claiming the death benefits of her husband, as his wife. She and her husband lived at Door No.39-34- 122, Ambedkar Colony, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.1 is the voters list. Ex.A.2 is the study certificate of third appellant. Ex.A.3 is the death certificate of her husband. Ex.A.4 is the identity card of late Divakala Sivasankara Rao. Ex.A.5 is the medical bill issued by C.D.R. Hospital when Sivasankara Rao was admitted in it. Ex.A.6 is the photograph taken after the marriage. Ex.A.7 is the photograph taken after the death of Sivasankara Rao with negative. In the cross-examination, PW.1 stated that she got admitted third appellant in Municipal High School, Madavadhara during the life time of her husband. PW.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A.2 got fabricated for the purpose of claiming the death benefits of late Divakala Sivasankara Rao. 12. The evidence of PW2 is that he knows the deceased-Divakala Sivasankara Rao since his childhood. Late Sivasankara Rao married the first appellant in 1988. He stated that deceased was the husband of the first appellant. They got two children i.e. one male and one female and both are studying. The deceased worked as Driver in APSRTC and he died due to ill-health in CDR hospital. The first appellant brought the dead body of the deceased to the house. The APSRTC authorities paid Rs.1,000/- to the first appellant towards funeral expenses. In his cross examination, he stated that he was present at the time of marriage of first appellant with the deceased. 13. PW.3 stated that he knows late Divakala Sivasanakra Rao. The first appellant is the wife of late Divakala Sivasankara Rao. Their marriage took place in his presence in 1988. They got two children and they are studying. Divakala Sivasankara Rao died on 24.2.2000 due to ill-health in CDR hospital. The father of late Divakala Sivasankara Rao and the first appellant performed his final rites. The APSRTC authorities paid Rs.1,000/- to the first appellant towards funeral expenses. He stated that to his knowledge, late Divakala Sivasankara Rao had no another wife. In his cross-examination, he stated that cremation ceremony took place at Marripalem. 14. PW.4 is the Chairman of Vidya Committee, Madhavadhara. He stated that as per original admission register at Page No.42, the admission of Narasinga Rao is S.No.46649 and he was admitted on 23.6.1999. Name of Narsinga Rao’s father is shown as Divakula Shankara Rao. In the same register, the admission of Kondamma is shown as admission No.6206 and her father’s name shown as Divakula Sankararao and the date of admission is 28.6.1997. In his cross examination, nothing was elicited. 15. The evidence of PW.5 is that he knows the first appellant since 1976. First appellant’s husband is late D.Sanakara Rao, who worked in APSRTC. He stated that he was present at the time of marriage of the first appellant and he got the marriage performed. Appellants 2 and 3 are their children. The APSRTC Depot Manager of Anakapalli on information furnished by him, gave Rs.1,000/- to the first appellant for funeral expenses. In his presence, the amount was paid to the first appellant. In token of payment, he along with one Apparao signed on the receipt. In his cross-examination, he stated that the marriage between the first appellant and the deceased took place in August,1988. 16. DW.3 is second defendant in the suit. His evidence is that the deceased Sivasankara Rao is his son and he expired on 24.2.2000. He stated that the first appellant (PW.1) is his daughter-in-law, being the wife of his deceased son. She is now staying at Ambedkar Colony. During the life time of his son, first appellant (PW.1) used to stay in his house along with his deceased son. The first respondent has nothing to do with his deceased son. The first respondent’s claim that she is the wife of his deceased son is not correct. The second and third appellants are his grand children. In his cross-examination, he stated he did not see first respondent (DW.1) prior to this case. DW.3 was shown photographs with regard to establishing the marriage between the first respondent and the deceased. 17. DW.4 is third defendant in the suit. Her evidence is that the first appellant (PW.1) is her daughter-in-law, being the wife of her deceased son Sankararao, who married in August, 1988. PW.1 is living with them since the date of her marriage with her son. She is still living with them. My deceased son worked as APSRTC Driver. He died about three years back. She did not know that DW.1 is the wife of her deceased son. In her cross-examination she stated that her deceased son married only once. She saw the first respondent (DW.1) after the case. DW.4 was shown photographs with regard to establishing the marriage between the first respondent and the deceased. It is pertinent to note that in her cross-examination she stated that she was beaten up and brought forcibly to the place of marriage of DW.1 with her deceased son. 18. DW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that she did not know whether her husband earlier married any woman and begotten children. She has not married under Special Marriage Act and she has not obtained marriage certificate. She admitted that her elders have not approached the parents of her husband for marriage alliance. She admitted that her husband’s house is situated in Ambedkar Colony, but she did not know the door number. 19. DW.2 is Purohit. He stated that he performed the marriage of DW.1 with the deceased. In his cross-examination, he stated that deceased Sanakra Rao, was residing in Ambedkar colony. He has not asked the deceased prior to the marriage whether he married any woman earlier. He further stated that he saw PW.1 in Ambedkar colony. 20. The claim of the first appellant is that she is legally wedded wife of late Divakala Sivssankara Rao. To substantiate her claim, apart from herself examining as PW.1, she got examined PWs 2 to 5. From the evidence of PWs 2 to 5, it is categorically established that the first appellant (PW.1) is the legally wedded wife of the late Divakala Sivasankara Rao and their marriage took place in the year 1988, and out of wedlock, two children were born to them and they are studying. Further, DWs 3 and 4, being the parents of the deceased-Divakala Sivasankara Rao, supported the claim of the appellants. Hence, it is proved that the first appellant is the legally wedded wife and appellants 2 and 3 are the legitimate children of late Divakala Sivasankara Rao. 21. The marriage between the deceased Divakala Sivasankara Rao and the first respondent (DW.1) took place in the year 1996 and the same is not valid as the marriage between the first appellant and the deceased Divakala Sivasankara Rao was subsisting. The claim of the first respondent (DW.1) that she was shown as nominee in the life insurance policies obtained by late Divakala Sivasankara Rao and as such she is wife of the deceased Divakala Sivasanakra Rao does not stand legal scrutiny since the marriage between the first appellant and the deceased Divakala Sivasanakara Rao was subsisting. Similarly, the first respondent cannot claim the death benefits of the deceased Divakala Sivasankara Rao. 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the court below has grossly erred in dismissing O.S.No.54 of 2000, without appreciating the whole evidence brought on record by the parties. 23. In the result, the appeal suit is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 31.7.2002 in O.S.No.54 of 2000 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakapatnam, is set-aside. The first appellant being legally wedded wife, appellants 2 and 3, legitimate children of the deceased-Divakala Sivasankara Rao and the daughter born through the first respondent as well as respondent No.3-mother of deceased are entitled to claim the amount of life insurance policies as well as the death benefits of the deceased etc. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 22.04.2010 Stp