R.S.A. No.1071 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... R.S.A. No.1071 of 1988 Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Kamlesh Kumari ... Appellant VERSUS Sawaran Devi and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gaurav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Appellant Kamlesh Kumari in this case is wife of deceased Prem Chand, who was working as J.B.T. Teacher and was married with the appellant on 27.01.1984. Kamlesh Kumari was also employed as J.B.T. Teacher in the State of Punjab. Prem Chand, husband of the appellant died of un-natural death within one year of his marriage by committing suicide. After his death, a dispute arose between the appellant and her mother-in-law Sawaran Devi (respondent No.1 in appeal) for entitlement to G.P.Fund, gratuity, C.T.D., L.I.C. and balance pay etc. left by the deceased. In order to claim this amount Sawaran Devi filed a suit for declaration in the trial Court, which was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Court decreed the suit by holding R.S.A. No.1071 of 1988 2 that Sawaran Devi (respondent No.1) was entitled to inherent property of the deceased from Prem Chand in equal shares with the present appellant to all kinds of property including provident fund, gratuity, C.T.D., Group Insurance or any other amount, which were stated to be standing in the name of Prem Chand deceased. Aggrieved from this judgment of reversal by the Appellate Court, widow of deceased Kamlesh Kumari has come in appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has disputed the judgment of the Court below on the point that there was nothing on the file to prove that respondent No.1 was wholly or partly dependent upon the income of the deceased. Husband of respondent No.1 was tailor-master and was earning his livelihood sufficiently for both of them to survive. Finally, he has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in case C.W.P.No.15287 of 2006 titled as Sukhwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) RSJ 661. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. However, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has contended that the appellant has contracted second marriage after the death of her husband and as there was no child out of the wed-lock with the deceased, the entire amount of G.P.Fund and other emoluments should have gone to the parents of the deceased. The fact regarding death of Prem Chand within one year of marriage is not disputed. It is also not disputed that no child was born out of the wed-lock and he died of un-natural death i.e. jumping into the well. Before his death, he has left a note wherein it has been mentioned that his wife was responsible for his death. However, this R.S.A. No.1071 of 1988 3 suicide note has been negated by the Courts below. The only question which needs to be determined in the present appeal is as to whether respondent No.1 being mother of the deceased is covered by the definition of word 'family' and is entitled to get the dues left over by the deceased. The definition of word 'family' as per the Family Pension, Scheme of 1964 and amendment in the year 1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 includes wife as well as parents who are wholly dependent upon the income of employee. The present appellant is employed as J.B.T. Teacher and is getting her salary. This is argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that mother of the deceased was dependent upon the income of her husband, who was working as tailor and was not at all dependent upon the income of the deceased. These arguments are devoid of any force in absence of any evidence to prove if father of the deceased was having sufficient income to support himself and that of mother of the deceased. Otherwise also, the appellant has spent about one year with the deceased while parents of the deceased have brought up their son, educated him and ultimately he got the job of teacher. This Court of the view that there is nothing wrong with the decision of the Appellate Court which has held both appellant as well as parents of the deceased to be entitled to the benefits left over by the deceased in equal shares especially under the circumstances when the deceased has left no child and the wife is sufficiently employed. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Sukhwant Kaur's case (supra). This case deals with the question of family pension, payable by the State after the death of an employee and in this case it becomes liability of the State to pay the family R.S.A. No.1071 of 1988 4 pension for sufficient long time till that employee was to perform his duties if he had not died. On the other side, the case in hand relates to the dues like G.P.Fund, gratuity, C.T.D. a sum of ` 5000 and L.I.C. Policy etc. in which State has to do nothing except to make the payment to the survivors of the deceased. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any ambiguity or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the same is affirmed and upheld. The present appeal being devoid of any force is dismissed. September 19, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE