IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 221 of 2008() --------------------- OS.97/1991 of PRINCIPAL SUB ORDINATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------- 1. THANKAMMA,W/O. A.RAVEENDRANATHAN, ALAXANDRIYA ESTATE, PADAGIRI, NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. SATYABHANA,D/O.THANKAMMA ALAXANDRIYA ESTATE, PADAGIRI, NELLIYAMPATHY, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1 ------------- KANAKAVALLY,D/O. KAVERI AMMA THEKKEDATHU VEETTIL,KALLEKKADU, VADAKKANTHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.221 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision is preferred against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Palakkad in I.A.No.2869/99 and I.A.No. 521/03 in O.S.No.97/91. 2. One Sri.Ravindranathan an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board died in the year 1990 and immediately thereafter the legal heirs started fighting against each other contending that one is the real wife and other is not . Ultimately a compromise was entered into between the parties. One person was entitled to have 50% of the LIC and PF amount and also the benefit of the employment under the dying-in harness scheme. The other person was entitled to balance 50% LIC and PF amount and also the family pension amount. So it has to be understood that the family pension amount was allowed to be withdrawn by her for the reason that employment for the dying- in-harness scheme is provided to the other group. Now certain amount was deposited before the court below under the assumption that it is the provident fund and LIC amount. As per CRP 221/2008 2 the terms of the compromise 50% was apportioned among the two groups. Since the children were minors, their share was deposited in the bank. Now the person to whom 50% of the family pension amount is given has come forward with the contention that the amount in deposit that has been apportioned between the two groups does not represent the LIC or PF amount and it is the family pension amount to which that party alone is entitled to. The court on an appreciation on the materials held in favour of her and so ultimately other group has come in revision before this court. 3. What is to be decided precisely in the matter is, does the amount which was deposited before the court represents LIC and provident fund. Then necessarily 50% have to be equally apportioned among the two groups. But if it represents the family pension amount or arrears of the family pension amount, it shall only belong to one party. The court below on the basis of Ext.X1 document found in favour of the person to whom the family pension amount is allotted. It is true that no such materials are available precisely to find out the category under which the amount is deposited and it is also to be stated that the CRP 221/2008 3 minors who are well aggrieved by an oder passed by the court has not been heard though they have attained majority. So that the matter requires reconsideration. 4. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the court below and remit back the case to the Subordinate Judge with a direction to consider it precisely and hold to which caption does the amount belong. If it is family pension, then it has exclusively be given to the party who is entitled to it under the compromise decree and if it is representing the LIC or PF amount it has to be apportioned at 50% each. For that purpose, the parties may be permitted to summon documents from the Kerala State Electricity Board, LIC or Provident Fund Commission Authority and decide the matter in accordance with law and till such time the order passed by the court below shall remain suspended. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl