“No Divorce, No Doubt: ‘The Marriage Was Never Dissolved’ – Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Family Pension Rights Amid Claims of Bigamy, Forgery, and Abandonment”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Single Bench of Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, affirmed the validity of a will executed by a deceased government school teacher in favor of his second wife and her children while simultaneously recognizing the first wife’s right to family pension. The court dismissed both appeals challenging the 1998 decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, which had partially allowed the suit for pension benefits filed by the first wife and rejected additional claims.
The matter stemmed from O.S. No.11 of 1991 filed by R. Satyavathi, the legally wedded wife of late Remani Venkata Sitarama Sastry, seeking a declaration of entitlement to family pension and other retirement benefits. The case challenged payments made to the 5th defendant, Remani Naga Venkata Krishnaveni, who had claimed to be the widow of Sastry based on a will and legal heir certificate.
Satyavathi asserted that she married Sastry in May 1959 and was later forced to file O.S. No.44 of 1971 for maintenance, which resulted in a compromise decree. She alleged Sastry abandoned her but never divorced her. She sought to recover gratuity (Rs. 36,000), provident fund (Rs. 16,109), family pension (Rs. 1,070/month from 08.12.1988), and group insurance benefits (Rs. 45,000), alleging these were wrongfully paid to Krishnaveni.
According to the plaintiff, "Krishnaveni clandestinely claimed Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension... by producing false certificates with the connivance of defendant Nos.1 to 4." She contended that Krishnaveni was not Sastry’s legally wedded wife and any marriage with her would be illegal and bigamous.
The 1st defendant (Zilla Praja Parishad W.G. District) denied knowledge of Sastry’s marital history. Upon receiving a legal heir certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 11.01.1989 listing Krishnaveni and her minor children as heirs, and supported by an application dated 15.02.1989, the provident fund was disbursed. The 1st defendant submitted, "There are no disputes pending with the 1st defendant at the time of considering the payment..."
Krishnaveni, the 5th defendant, submitted that she married Sastry in a Hindu ceremony on 28.02.1970 and had two sons through him. She asserted that Sastry, "executed a Will on 14.08.1988 in a sound and disposing state of mind..." which bequeathed all benefits to her and her children. She denied any wrongdoing, stating that "there is no necessity for production of any succession certificate...” and claimed nomination had been made in her favor.
Key evidence included Ex.B.21, the unregistered will, attested by two witnesses (DW4 and DW5), and Ex.B.3, the legal heir certificate. Plaintiff’s cross-examination confirmed several facts including the marriage between Krishnaveni and Sastry, maintenance payments until 1991, and her own lack of nomination request or claim immediately following Sastry’s death.
The trial court decreed the suit partially on 16.03.1998, granting Satyavathi only family pension and rejecting her claim over other service benefits, which were upheld for Krishnaveni and her children. Both sides appealed this judgment.
Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao examined whether Ex.B.21 (Will) was proved in law and whether the trial court was justified in its decree.
The court reiterated the legal principle that "the onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding a will..." and cited Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others (2008) 15 SCC 365.
It was recorded: "In order to prove the alleged Ex.B.21 Will, the original un-registered Will is produced and marked as Ex.B.21... the two attestors in Ex.B.21 Will were examined as DW4 and DW5... their evidence is not shattered in cross-examination."
The court further noted admissions by the plaintiff, such as: "She came to know about the death of her husband after 10 days and did not attend the obsequies... she admitted the marriage of her husband with the 5th defendant and the legitimacy of their children."
Referring to binding precedents including Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 735, and Smt. Hardev Kaur vs. Chowdhry Jodh Singh, AIR 1969 P&H, the court acknowledged that provident fund and gratuity could be disposed of via a will and that a government may act on evidence of a second marriage for administrative disbursement even in the absence of a court decree.
The court observed: "The evidence on record inspires confidence about the execution of Ex.B.21 Will and there are no suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of Ex.B.21 Will..."
Accordingly, it found that the trial court correctly granted family pension to the plaintiff and upheld service benefits under Ex.B.21 to the 5th defendant and her children.
The court ordered:
"In the result, both the appeals A.S. No.1474 of 1998 and A.S.No.1692 of 1998 are dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment, dated 16.03.1998, passed in O.S. No.11 of 1991... Considering the facts and circumstances, each party do bear their own costs in the appeal suits."
It further recorded: "As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals shall stand closed."
Case Title: R. Satyavathi vs. The Zilla Praja Parishad W.G. Dist and Others & Remani Naga Venkata Krishnaveni and Others vs. Remani Satyavathi and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010114401998
Case Numbers: A.S. No.1474/1998 and A.S. No.1692/1998
Bench: Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
[Read/Download order]
