aIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.542 OF 2010 Between : Pilli Venkanna .... PETITIONER A N D Pilli Noolalamma. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.542 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 01.04.2009, in I.A.No.97 of 2009 in O.P.No.603 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The respondent herein is wife of the petitioner herein. The respondent/wife filed original petition No.603 of 2007 before the Court below for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month and same was partly allowed by order dated 01.04.2009 enhancing the maintenance to Rs.1,000/- per month. In the said original petition, she filed the present interlocutory application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to direct the petitioner/husband to record her name as nominee to receive the Provident Fund, Gratuity, Death-cum-service benefits including retirement benefits of her husband, which was allowed by the Court below vide the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of nomination by the employee, the retirement benefits would devolve upon legal heirs in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), and therefore, such a direction ought to have given by the trial Court and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent, being the wife of the petitioner/employee, her name has to be recorded as nominee to receive Provident Fund, Gratuity, Death-cum-Service including Retirement benefits and the court below rightly allowed the petition, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Even assuming for a moment that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, mere recording the name of wife as a nominee to receive the retirement benefits, Provident Fund, Gratuity etc it does not mean a nominee alone is entitled to receive the said benefits. She has to prove that she is entitled to receive the terminal benefits as a legal heir of her husband in accordance with the Act. May be the rules relevant governing the service conditions of employee require nomination of a person, who is entitled to receive the terminal benefits in case of death of employee. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 5. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving open all the remedies available to the petitioner under law. However, it is made clear mere entry in the service record of employee with regard to nomination by itself is not a ground for a nominee to claim entire terminal benefits. The terminal benefits if any are to be devolved upon the legal heirs of an employee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 24, 2011. YVL