IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 890 of 2010() ---------------------------- (COMMON ORDER DATED 31.8.2010 IN OP NO.229/07 OF FAMILY COURT, THDUPUZHA) ------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ KALYANI, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE T.K. PARANGODAM, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, KULAMAVU.P.O., IDUKKI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ KARTHY, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, PERUMPADAPU PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679580. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Surendra Mohan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat.Appeal No.890 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Before us are two elderly women Kalyani and Karthy claiming rival status of being the widow of late Parangodan, who had served the KSEB. Though Kalyani sued, on adjudication, Karthy was found entitled to be declared as the wife with a lawful marriage with Parangodan, earlier in point of time than Kalyani's pleaded marriage. Therefore, the Family Court dismissed Kalyani's claim and decreed Karthy's counter claim. Kalyani is before us in appeal. 2.Having regard to some confusion about the identity and description of a witness, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant MA890//11 -: 2 :- Kalyani thought it wise to have her presence in Court. She is present. 3.At the last date of hearing, we thought that this is a case where the parties would know the truth of their lives better than what would meet our eyes, even on a judicial determination. We, therefore, wanted the learned counsel on either side to probe the possibility of an amicable settlement. 4.Today, we are told by the learned counsel for the respondent that sustaining the declaration given by the court below as to her marital status, his client Karthy, is prepared to let Kalyani have 40% of the retiral benefits of Parangodan and that she is also amenable to part with 40% from the family pension that would accrue from time to time. Kalyani has accepted this through her learned counsel who makes that submission in her presence. Though there could be some technical objection by KSEB in terms of the financial code MA890//11 -: 3 :- and also the Family Pension Rules, to apportion and pay the family pension to two women, we are of the view that the offer of Karthy that she will collect the family pension from KSEB on the basis of the declaration of her marital status and give off 40% of that every month to Kalyani is acceptable as a term of settlement arrived at by both sides on consensus. This will give a quietus to the controversies and preserve the good feelings between the two elderly women and their children. 5.With the aforesaid, we modify the impugned decree to the extent it relates to the disbursement of the retiral benefits and order that the declaration of the marital status of Karthy as wife of late Parangodan will stand without prejudice to her depositing 40% of the retiral benefits due to Parangodan, including which would accrue further with the passage of time, in a bank account in the name of Kalyani which would be notified by Kalyani to Karthy. Karthy will MA890//11 -: 4 :- also be at liberty to part with 40% of family pension out of what she would collect from KSEB to Kalyani by remittance into the said account on monthly basis. The Mat.Appeal is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. K.Surendra Mohan, Judge. Sha/3108