IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 MFA. No. 447 of 1996 ------------------------- OS.492/1992 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD DEFENDANT: -------------- SMT. G. VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, VIJAYA BHAVAN (ELLUVILA) NJALIKONAM, ARAMADA, TRIVANDRUM - 32. BY ADV. SRI. B. KRISHNA MANI SRI. V. PREMCHAND. RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 & 2: ------------------ 1. K. RETNAMMA, W/O.LATE N. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, CHACKALAYIL VEEDU, PATHIYOOR, EAST KEERIKKAD, P.O KAYAMKULAM, EMPLOYED AS U.D.C. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING NOW AT GOVT. QUARTERS, FLAT NO. 36/408, MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 002. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 3. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SENA AYUDH CORPS ABHILEKH KARYALAYA, ARMY ORDANCE CORPS RECORDS OFFICE , POST BOX NO. 3,TRIMULGHERRY P.O SECONDERABAD - 500 015. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, ADDL.CGSC SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI. G. UNNIKRISHNAN, CGSC THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 447 OF 1996 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. The appellant, who is the third defendant in O.S.No.492/1992, filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. 2. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Hav.Nanu Ramakrishna Pillai and that she is entitled to family pension benefits due on the death of late Ramakrishna Pillai. She also sought for a declaration that the document No.230/82 registered at the Sub Registry Office, Sasthamangalam has no legal effect on the status of the plaintiff. 3. According to the plaintiff, the marriage between Nanu Ramakrishna Pillai and herself took place on 10.05.1968 as per the custom prevailing among the members of the Nair Community. Ramakrishna Pillai was discharged from Army M.F.A. 447/96 2 service on 22.04.1980. After retirement, he died on 12.03.1988. The plaintiff is the nominated heir of her husband for the family pension benefits granted by the Ministry of defence. On 04.09.1982, the parties entered into a registered divorce deed. Exhibit A1 is the said document. It is the plaintiff's case that after the death of her husband, she being the widow is entitled to the family pension benefits and Exhibit A1 document is abinitio void as a registered divorce deed cannot terminate the marital status of the parties. 4. The contesting defendant, who is the appellant herein, resisted the suit denying the right of the plaintiff to claim the death benefits of deceased Ramakrishna Pillai. According to the appellant, there was no legal marriage between the plaintiff and the deceased Ramakrishna Pillai. She further submits that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Ramakrishna Pillai and that the marriage between them was solemnized on 02.02.1983. 5. The court below examined the oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined PWs 1 to 3 and produced and marked Exhibits A1 to A12. The appellant was examined as DW1. She also produced Exhibits B1 to B4. The court below M.F.A. 447/96 3 discussed the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. It is the admitted fact that after registering the divorce deed, Ramakrishna Pillai married the appellant-third defendant. After discussing the documentary evidence produced as Exhibits A1 to A12 and the oral evidence tendered by the parties, the court below rightly held that the plaintiff has proved that she is the legally wedded wife of Ramakrishna Pillai and that the defendant was married while the marriage between the plaintiff and Ramakrishna Pillai was subsisting and in that premise, the court also held that the third defendant cannot claim any right over the assets of the deceased. 6. We have gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved by executing an agreement. In this case, Exhibit A1 deed was pointed out by the appellant in support of her case that there is a valid termination of marriage. We find that the contention cannot be upheld for the simple reason that a marriage can be dissolved only by a process known to law. We find no reason to disagree with the reasons stated by the court below in order to take a contrary view on the facts and circumstances of the case. M.F.A. 447/96 4 In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and therefore, the appeal fails. It is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE smp M.F.A. 447/96 5 KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. M.F.A. No. 447 OF 1996 J U D G M E N T 24.01.2008