SMT. PARVATHAMMA vs THE COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:
SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O L.LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.38/55, 13 CROSS
TH
7 MAIN, KANTEERAVA COLONY
A.D.HALLI, BENGALURU-560 079.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH G K., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BHRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BENGALURU-560 002.

2. THE ACCOUNT SUPERVISOR
RETIREMENT BENEFITS SECTION
BHRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BENGALURU-560 002.

3. SMT.SHAKUNTALA
W/O LATE L.LINGAIAH
D/O SRI.TOPAIAH
AGED AOBUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.110, ANIKETHANA ROAD
ND
2 CROSS ROAD
KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570023.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2:
SRI. CHIKKAVENKATAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

THIS RFA IS FILED U/O XLI RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.10.2015 PASSED IN O.S NO.8014/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-53), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment and
decree dated 16.10.2015 passed by the LII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit
filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that she is
entitled to a half share in the death-cum-retirement
benefits of her husband, late Lingaiah, came to be
dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff
claims to be the second wife of late Lingaiah, who was
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

working as an Assistant Revenue Officer in the defendant
No.1-Corporation (BBMP) and retired from service upon
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000. He
died on 12.10.2009. The further case of the plaintiff is
that, as respondent No.3, who is the first wife of the
deceased Lingaiah, was living separately from him.
Eventually, Lingaiah married the plaintiff and they lived
together for more than 20 years. At the time of his death,
the plaintiff was the one living with Lingaiah and
performed his last rites. Therefore, she filed the suit
seeking for declaration that she is entitled to a half share
in the death-cum-retirement benefits of Lingaiah.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared
through counsel and filed their written statement, denying
the marital status of the plaintiff with the deceased
Lingaiah. They contended that the suit was not
maintainable, as the plaintiff had no locus standi to claim
any share in the pensionary benefits of the deceased
Lingaiah, and sought dismissal of the suit.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial
Court framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has legal
status to claim the relief of declaration and
injunction against the defendants No.1 to 3?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has half
share in the death monitory benefits of late
L.Lingaiah, lying before the defendant No.1?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants No.1
and 2 are trying to disburse ½ share amount in
the said death benefits, in favour of defendant
No.3.
4) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is
correct?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaratory
and injunctory relief as prayed for?
6) What order or decree?

6. To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as
PW-1 and examined three independent witnesses as PWs-
2 to 4 and relied upon ten documents marked as Exs.P-1
to P-10. On the other hand, defendant No.3 examined
herself as DW-1 and relied upon three documents marked
as Exs.D-1 to D-3. Upon appreciation of the oral and
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered issue
Nos.1 to 5 in the negative and dismissed the suit. Being
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this
appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended
that respondent No.3 is the first wife of the deceased
Lingaiah and, due to matrimonial disputes, she was living
separately from him. There was also an order of judicial
separation passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.6/1999.
Therefore, Lingaiah married the plaintiff, and they lived
together for more than 20 years. At the time of the death
of Lingaiah, the plaintiff was living with him, took care of
him and performed his last rites. It was further contended
that, during his lifetime, Lingaiah submitted a
representation to the Corporation requesting that, after
his death, his monetary benefits be paid to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the
death-cum-retirement benefits of Lingaiah. The trial
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

Court, without considering these aspects, erred in
dismissing the suit.

8. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

10. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal
are, (i) whether the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court is perverse or illegal so as to warrant
interference by this Court; and (ii) whether the alleged
second marriage of Lingaiah with the plaintiff has any
legal status in law.

11. It is not in dispute that deceased Lingaiah was
working in defendant No.1-Corporation and that
defendant No.3 is his first wife.

12. The case of the plaintiff is that respondent No.3 and
Lingaiah were not on good terms and were living
separately, and that there was an order of judicial
separation in M.C.No.6/1999. Therefore, according to the
plaintiff, Lingaiah married her, and they lived together for
more than 20 years.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

13. The parties are subject to the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for
short). Under Section 5 of the Act, a marriage is subject
to the condition that neither party has a spouse living at
the time of the marriage. If the first marriage subsists, a
subsequent marriage is void in terms of Section 11 of the
said Act. Since the alleged marriage of the plaintiff with
Lingaiah has no legal status in the eye of law, she cannot
maintain a suit seeking a half share in the death-cum-
retirement benefits of late Lingaiah on the basis of such
marriage. As observed by the trial Court, she may, at
best, seek maintenance in accordance with law.

14. The suit was filed seeking a share in the death-cum-
retirement benefits of late Lingaiah. The Trial Court, after
considering the provisions of the Act and by relying upon
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has rightly
dismissed the suit.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58702
RFA No. 25 of 2016

CNR: KAHC010174042016

15. This Court finds no error or illegality in the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court warranting
dismissed
interference. Accordingly, the appeal is .

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE

HA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32