Children Born From Void Or Voidable Marriages Are Legitimate, Exclusion From Benefit Of Pension Is Arbitrary- Karnataka HC
A Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice HP Sandesh has emphasised that children born out of void or voidable marriages will still be entitled to benefits like pension and service benefits of their parent. The Court also said that it is not open to the State to exclude such children from the benefit and that such condition of exclusion is arbitrary and ultra-vires.
In that context, it was also said that, "children do not choose their parents, even children born to a void marriage also legitimate and legitimacy of such child is a matter of public policy to protect him or her from consequences of illegitimacy."
Counsel BC Avinash appeared for the petitioners, while Counsel Sateesh Chandra KV and Counsel BJ Eshwarappa appeared for the respondents.
In the case of the petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003, it was asserted that the first petitioner was the wife of the deceased Narasimhamurthy, and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were his children. Similarly, in P&SC No.27/2003, the first petitioner claimed to be Narasimhamurthy's wife, and the second petitioner asserted to be their son. Both parties presented their arguments and evidence to support their claims.
After examining the pleadings and evidence presented by both parties, the trial court evaluated the case and ruled in favor of P&SC No.21/2003, rejecting P&SC No.27/2003. The court held that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in P&SC No.21/2003 and petitioner No. 2 in P&SC No.27/2003 were entitled to an equal share in the service benefits of the deceased Narasimhamurthy. They were granted a succession certificate, and petitioner No. 1, Smt. Shakuntala, was allowed to claim compassionate appointment as the nearest legal heir of Narasimhamurthy.
Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, the petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 filed two appeals, labeled as P&SC Appeal No.1 and 2 of 2012, after the passing of the first petitioner. The appeals named the petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 as respondents, and Zilla Panchayath and KGID were also made respondents in P&SC Appeal No.2/2012.
Upon re-evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the first appellate court reached the conclusion that the first petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 was indeed the wife and the second petitioner was the son of Narasimhamurthy. Consequently, the appeal filed by Nutan Kumar (second petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003) was allowed, and the counter appeal by the contesting respondents (petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003) was rejected.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed two revision petitions challenging the orders. In Civil Revision Petition No.138/2016, they contended that the trial court and the first appellate court had committed errors in their judgments. The revision petitioners argued that Nutan Kumar should not have been entitled to a share in Narasimhamurthy's service benefits, and the first appellate court was wrong to reject their claim.
The issues arising for consideration were:
1) Whether the revision petitions filed by the revision petitioners requires to be allowed and to set aside the passed for the first petition recognizing that Nutan Kumar was also entitled for a share in the service benefits of deceased Narasimhamurthy?
2) Whether the order impugned passed in the second petition requires to be set aside and committed an error in recognizing only N.Nutan Kumar is entitled for service benefits?
On hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, the Court observed that there was nothing was elicited in the cross examination of any of the witnesses and oral evidence was not helpful to either of the parties. On perusal of the documentary evidence, the Court noted that the father name was mentioned as Narasimhamurthy. Resultantly, the Court observed that, "I do not find any error committed by the first appellate Court in re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record and question of compassionate appointment does not arise in a succession certificate as held by the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court also considering the material on record rightly comes to the conclusion that the Court has to decide amongst the contesting parties who is having a better material for issuance of succession certificate."
On considering the issue whether the children born to the second wife were entitled for the relief of service benefits, the Court observed that "it is very clear that children will not choose their parents and also such people have not committed any sin of become the children of second marriage of a person who contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage and both the Courts have given the finding that the subsequent marriage is a second marriage."
Consequently, the revision petitions were allowed.
Cause Title: Smt. Shakuntala @ Shakuntalamma & Ors. vs N. Nutan Kumar & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
