IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10278 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OS.297/2005 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- DIRECTOR, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KUDULU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SMT.K.KUTTY, W/O.LATE K.RAGHAVAN, AGED 64 YEARS, PUTHENMANNEL VEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM (P.O), KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. SMT.PADMINI, W/O.(LATE) K.RAGHAVAN, AGED 57 YEARS, MOOKKATHERIL VEEDU, PRAYAR SOUTH, KLAPPANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD FOR R1 SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R2 SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JAGADEESH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 10278 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The second respondent as plaintiff before the Family Court has filed O.S.No.297/2005. The first respondent is the sole defendant in the said suit. The relief claimed was for a declaration that the first respondent is not the legally wedded wife of deceased K. Raghavan who was employed as an employee under the petitioner. Consequent to his death, terminal benefits etc. were payable by the petitioner to the legally wedded wife of late K. Raghavan. As per document, which the petitioner had, it was revealed that the first respondent was the legally wedded wife, the sole legal heir and the nominee of late Raghavan. 2. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalath by the Family Court and it is seen that before the Lok Adalath, the matter was settled between the parties. Lok Adalath did not pass any award WPC.10278/2009 -2- but was successful in inducing the petitioner to come to a settlement which settlement was filed before the Family Court. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement. 3. The petitioner has come before this Court with a grievance that the agreement is opposed to law and the settlement should not have been accepted by the Family Court. As per the relevant rules, there can only be one wife for the deceased and plurality of the wife for the deceased, a Hindu cannot be recognised in accordance with law. It was, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to court with this writ petition to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Respondents 1 and 2, who have entered appearance, though they stand by the settlement, are unwilling to accept either as the real and legally wedded wife of the deceased. 5. We find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner cannot obviously recognise two persons as the wives of a deceased Hindu employee. While resolving the dispute between the parties, they should have specified who the real wife of the deceased is? That having not been agreed upon and settled between the parties, WPC.10278/2009 -3- the direction to the petitioner is not legal and cannot be accepted and followed by the petitioner. It is, hence, prayed that this writ petition may be allowed, the impugned order may be set aside and the court below may be directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. 6. Opportunities were given abundantly to the respondents to come to a proper and legally valid agreement/settlement. They are unable to do so. They are not able to resolve among themselves the controversy as to who is the real wife of the deceased. They are not willing to specify that either of them must be recognized as a wife and permitted to receive the amounts from the petitioner, of course, with the obligation to part with a portion or half of such amount received to the other. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is merit in the objections raised by the petitioner. The agreement entered into between the parties, i.e. the respondents herein cannot be held to be a legally valid agreement/settlement. In these circumstances inevitably the impugned order has to be set aside and the leaned Judge of the Family Court must be directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. WPC.10278/2009 -4- 8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 25-9-2007 passed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the respondents is hereby set aside. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 3-8-2009. The parties shall be permitted to adduce all evidence which they want to rely upon in accordance with law. The Family Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from 3-8- 2009. No costs. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE WPC.10278/2009 -5-