THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD F.C.A NO :1 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree, dated 7.7.2006 passed in O.S.No.8 of 2002 by the Family Court, Secunderabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is the defendant, while the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-wife filed the suit O.S.No.8 of 2002 against the appellant-husband for recovery of difference of salary of Rs.17,570/- as per agreement dated 12.1.1999; for recovery of pension claimed at Rs.14,076/- as per agreement dated 16.9.1999; for future pension from the date of the suit and costs. In the plaint, the respondent stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and that out of their wedlock, a son was born to them. That the appellant had an extra marital life with one Moggayyamma and she gave birth to a son viz., Apparao. The appellant is working as URS in Dock Labour Board. He has been evincing more interest on Moggayyamma and their illegitimate son viz., Apparao. The appellant neglected to maintain her and her son, and he opted to leave the service on medical grounds with an intention to get job to his illegitimate son. That when she made a representation to the employer of the appellant to provide a job to her son, the appellant entered into an agreement dated 12.1.1999 with her. According to the said agreement, the appellant agreed to pay 2/3rd amount out of his service benefits to her and the job would be provided to his illegimate son. That in pursuance of the same, the appellant paid 2/3rd amount of his service benefits to the respondent. She further stated that the appellant received an amount of Rs.26,000/- towards salary and out of the said amount, the plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd. . That the appellant also executed an agreement on 16.9.1999 where under he agreed to pay 1/3rd of the pension to the respondent during her life time and if the respondent pre-deceases him, he would continue to pay the said 1/3rd pension to her son. That the appellant failed to pay the pension to her in terms of the compromise. The appellant-husband filed a written statement, in which, he admitted the execution of the agreement, dated 12.1.1999. He however denied execution of the agreement dated 16.9.1999. He stated that he got Rs.34,000/- and Rs.2,70,000/- from his employer and out of that amount, he paid Rs.1,07,000/- to the respondent towards past and future maintenance as permanent alimony, as per agreement dated 12.1.1999, and as such, the respondent is not entitled to claim any pensionary benefits and that the agreement dated 16.9.1999 was created by the respondent only to harass him. Before the Court below, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined second attestor of agreement dated 12.1.1999 and 16.9.1999 as P.W.2; scribe of agreement dated 16.9.1999 as P.W.3 and the employee in Dock Labour Board as P.W.4 and got marked Exs.A1, A2 and X1 documents. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence pleaded by the parties, the Court below decreed the suit in part viz., for a sum of Rs.13,812/- being one third share of the respondent in the pension of the appellant for the period from 1.9.1999 to 31.8.2000 i.e., at the rate of Rs.1151/- per month from out of the pension of the appellant at Rs.3.453/- per month. The Court below further held that the respondent is also entitled to future pension at the same rate of Rs.1151/- p.m., from the date of filing the suit i.e., 25.10.2000 as per Ex.A2 agreement till her life time. The rest of the suit claim was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant-husband filed the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that as per the terms of Ex.A1 agreement, the appellant-defendant paid 2/3rd of his retirement benefits to the respondent towards permanent alimony and as such, she has no right to claim any amount from the pension and that the respondent forged Ex.A2 to fraudulently claim share in the pension. But the Court below without appreciating the same has erred in partly decreeing the suit. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent- plaintiff contends that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment under appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The undisputed facts are the respondent-plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the appellant-defendant. They were blessed with a son by name Satyam. The appellant-defendant worked in Dock Labour Board. Therefore, he started living with one Moggayyamma and got a son through her. The respondent-plaintiff and appellant-defendant entered into Ex.A1-agreement dated 12.1.1999, as per which, the appellant-defendant agreed to pay 2/3rd of his retirement benefits to the respondent-plaintiff and get job to his illegitimate son. Accordingly, in terms of the said agreement, the appellant-defendant paid 2/3rd of his retirement benefits to the respondent-plaintiff. The main dispute between the parties is with regard to Ex.A2 agreement and the amount received by the appellant from his employer subsequent to Ex.A1 agreement. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestor and scribe of Ex.A2, discloses that the appellant-defendant executed Ex.A2 agreement, agreeing to give 1/3rd of his pension to the respondent-plaintiff during her life time and if she pre-deceases him, to same will be paid to her son. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly establishes execution of Ex.A2 document by the appellant-defendant. The appellant-defendant except denying the execution of Ex.A2, did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. That being so, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal passed by the Court below holding that Ex.A2 is genuine document and that the respondent is entitled to 1/3rd pension as awarded by the lower Court. For the foregoing reasons, I have find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment under appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 18.11.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD F.C.A.No.1 of 2007 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 18.11.2011 Nn