IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 179 of 2011 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36000/2010 Dated 02/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------- SMT. TREASA, THUDIYIL HOUSE, CHENNOOR, KOTHAD P.O., KOCHI-682 027. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM-682018. 2. SMT. MARY, THUDIYIL HOUSE, C/O. THUDIYIL STORES, CHENNOOR, KOTHAD P.O., PIN-682007 R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 179 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 ORDER Antony Dominic, J. The appellant claims to be the legally wedded wife of one Sebastian who was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. On the death of Sri.Sebastian, family pension was paid to the second respondent treating her as the legally welded wife of the deceased. Coming to know of the same, the appellant raised a claim for family pension. That was considered by the first respondent and her claim was rejected by Ext.P3 order. Challenging Ext.P3 order and seeking orders for payment of family pension to her, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.36000 of 2010 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 2nd December, 2010. It is challenging the said judgment the writ appeal has been filed. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant who contended that before the first respondent nobody disputed the status of the appellant as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and therefore, her claim for family pension ought to have been recognised and payments made to her. 3. However, from the impugned order Ext.P3, it is noticed that after the appellant deserted the deceased, the second respondent married and lived with the deceased for more than 32 years. The first respondent W.A. No.179 of 2011 - 2 - has also made reference to various documents to justify his conclusion that the second respondent was the wife of the deceased. 4. Proceeding further, in view of the fact that the appellant had relied on Ext.P1 certificate to contend that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, the learned Judge has rightly held that the question of marriage is a disputed fact and that the claim of the appellant that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, is to be established by her in suit before an appropriate civil court. We do not find anything illegal in the judgment warranting interference in this writ appeal. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice Antony Dominic, Judge vns