IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 1203 of 2001(A) ----------------------- OS.72/1996 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: ----------- INDIRA DEVI, W/O LATE R.S.PILLAI OF THENGUVILA VEEDU, AYIROOPARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. SAROJINI AMMA, KODITHOOKKICHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKADA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR OF -DO- -DO- 3. USHA KUMARI OF -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO. 7171 OF 2002 IN M.F.A. NO. 1203 OF 2001 DISMISSED SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE 17.06.2008 es KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.F.A No. 1203 of 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid,J The plaintiff in O.S. 72/1996 on the file of the Family court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. The Family court dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff cannot claim to be the legally wedded wife of deceased Sivasankara Pillai. The parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit. 2. According to the plaintiff her marriage with deceased Sivasankara Pillai was solemnised on 26.1.1989 and that they have been residing together as husband and wife till his death on 29.12.1995. The deceased Sivasankara pillai was an employee in the Food Corporation of India working as dusting operator . The plaintiff claims that being the legally wedded wife, she is entitled for terminal benefits of the deceased Sivasankara Pillai including the employment assistance under dying-in- harness scheme. 3. The 1st defendant contested the suit. According to her, she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Sivasanakra Pillai, that their marriage was solemnised as per the custom on 25.4.1968 and that there is no legal marriage between the plaintiff and her deceased husband. It is also M.F.A. No. 1203 of 2001 -2- contended that even if there is any cohabitation and concubinage between the plaintiff and the deceased Sivasankara Pillai, that relation does not confer any legal status to the plaintiff as the wife of the deceased Sivasankara Pillai. 4. On the side of the plaintiff PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts A1 to A3 were marked The 1st defendant examined herself as CPW1 and one witness as CPW2 and Exts B1 to B8 documents were marked on their side. Ext X1 was also marked . 5. The trial court elaborately considered the evidence on record. The oral testimonies of parties were appreciated. The trial court also relied on Ext B1 certificate of marriage issued from N.S.S. Karayogam Union and B2 Certificate of marriage issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Vembayam Panchyath. It was proved that the marriage between the deceased Sivasankara pillai and the 1st defendant was solemnised on 25.4.1968. To prove Ext B2 certificate the Special Grade Secretary of the Vembayam Gramapanchayath was examined. The trial court also perused Ext X1 report of the marriage between the 1st defendant and the deceased Sivasankara Pillai. On the basis of Exts.B1, B2, Ext X1 and oral testimonies of CPW2 the court held that the 1st defendant established her case that the marriage between them was solemnised on 25.4.1968. M.F.A. No. 1203 of 2001 -3- The trial court also examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and took the view that the plaintiff failed to prove the relationship of husband and wife. 6. The evidence tendered by the parties conclusively prove that the marriage was solemnised between the 1st defendant and the deceased Siva sankara pillai in the year 1968. So long as the marriage subsists till the death of her deceased husband, the case set up by the plaintiff that she is the legally wedded wife cannot stand and that there is no positive proof to find against the case set up by the 1st defendant . Since the marital relationship between the 1st defendant and the deceased Sivasankara Pillai was proved by convincing evidence , we have no reason to take a different view from that arrived by the trial court. In the result this appeal fails; and accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es