THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 3752 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.08.2003 passed in O.S. No. 157 of 2001 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, decreeing the suit filed by the 1st respondent in part, by declaring that the 1st respondent and the appellant herein are the legally wedded wives of the deceased Meer Iqbal Ali and that they are entitled to share in his pensionary benefits equally. The 1st respondent herein filed the present suit before the Court below, for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Meer Iqbal Ali and that she is entitled to his pension benefits. It was her case that her marriage with the deceased namely Meer Iqbal Ali took place on 25.12.1992 in Hyderabad, as per Muslim Personnel Law, and that the deceased married her by representing himself as a divorcee. But however, after marriage, she came to know that the appellant-1st defendant is the first wife of the deceased and their marriage was in subsistence and thereafter she, the appellant and the deceased resided together in Yakutpura in a rented house. While so, her husband died on 04.12.2000 as retired employee of South Central Railways and thereafter disputes arose between her and the appellant. She, thus, filed the present suit, seeking declaration as stated above. The appellant herein resisted the claim of the 1st respondent-plaintiff by filing written statement, stating that she alone is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and is nominated as such in his family pension records and that the deceased never married the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is not his legally wedded wife. Respondents 2 to 4 authorities, who are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, have also filed common written statement, putting the 1st respondent- plaintiff to strict proof of her case and admitting about the name of the appellant being mentioned as nominee of the deceased, in relevant records. On behalf of the 1st respondent-plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the appellant- 1st defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. The Court below, having considered the stand of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, held that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is also the legally wedded wife of the deceased, along with the appellant-defendant, and accordingly decreed the suit in part, declaring that the 1st respondent and the appellant are the legally wedded wives of the deceased Meer Iqbal Ali and that they are entitled to his pensionary benefits equally. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant-1st defendant contended that there were certain corrections as regards the names of the bridegroom and his father in Ex.A8, original shia nama, marked by the 1st respondent-plaintiff, to prove her marriage with the deceased, and that the Court below did not properly appreciate those corrections with reference to Ex.B1, photocopy of the same shia nama, which indicates the names of the bridegroom and his father that existed before such corrections, and it erred in declaring the 1st respondent as the legally wedded wife of the deceased, based upon the said document and some photographs filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff. He further contended that the name of the appellant alone is shown as nominee in relevant records and without considering the same, the Court below erred in holding that the 1st respondent is also entitled to a share in the pension benefits of the deceased, along with the appellant. He, thus, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order under appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the order under appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Railways and perused the order under appeal. A perusal of the order under appeal makes it clear that even though there were certain corrections as regards the names of the bridegroom and his father in Ex.A8, original shia nama, as is apparent from Ex.B1, photocopy of the same shia nama filed by the appellant, but however, the appellant herself, in her cross-examination, admitted that the said corrections in Ex.A8 were duly approved by the Qazi. In addition to Ex.A8, shia nama, to prove her marriage with the deceased, the 1st respondent-plaintiff has also marked Ex.A1, marriage certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer of A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, confirming the marriage between her and the deceased, based upon Ex.A8. Thus, the genuineness of Ex.A8 cannot be doubted, merely because certain corrections, which were duly approved by Qazi were made and based upon which the A.P. State Wakf Board has issued Ex. A1 certificate. Further, the appellant has also admitted her presence in Ex.A5 and A6 photographs, along with the deceased and the 1st respondent and she could not offer any explanation as to under what circumstances the 1st respondent joined her and the deceased at the time of taking those photographs, and this would strengthen the case of the 1st respondent that she, the appellant and the deceased were used to live together, during the lifetime of the deceased. Thus, no fault can be found with the action of the Court below in admitting the marriage of the 1st respondent with the deceased and declaring her to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased. So far as the contention of the appellant that she is shown as nominee in the pension records of the deceased and thus she alone is entitled to his pension benefits, is concerned, it may be noticed that mere nomination does not confer any legal right upon one to make a claim of the benefits on the death of the employee and in fact it is the duty of the nominee to receive those benefits and disburse among the legal heirs as per the succession rules. Further, the nomination in service records is also not a conclusive proof that the appellant is the sole legal heir of the deceased. Taking into consideration all the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly declared that the appellant and the 1st respondent are the legally wedded wives of the deceased and they are equally entitled to his pensionery benefits, and no exception can be taken thereto, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 2nd February, 2011 IBL