APHC010440252024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO: 112 OF 2024 Between: Mr.Borra Lavanya Reddy ...APPELLANT AND Mrs.P. Madhu Sree and two others ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Mr.L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The appellant herein, the 2nd respondent in FCOP No.288 of 2021, aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dated 18.07.2024, filed the present appeal. 2. The 1st respondent herein filed the said O.P. seeking to declare her as the legally wedded wife of one Mr.B.P.Mourya and she along with the 3rd respondent are alone entitled to receive the death benefits of said Mr.B.P. Mourya and compassionate benefits from the Company in which he was working. 3. The case of the 1st respondent herein is that she is the legally wedded wife of Mr.B.P. Mourya and that their marriage was performed on 29.10.2020 by his grandparents, as his parents i.e., the appellant herein and the 3rd respondent got separated by obtaining decree of divorce on 06.02.2006. Further that unfortunately, the said Mr.B.P. Mourya died on 09.05.2021 intestate by leaving behind him, the 1st respondent/wife and his mother-3rd respondent, Class-I legal heirs of the deceased. It is her case that the appellant herein who is the father of the deceased Mr.B.P.Mourya, left his son without taking any care of him 16 years ago, did not attend their marriage; and objected payment of death benefits etc., by the 2nd respondent company herein to her; and therefore constrained to file the above said OP for the reliefs referred to supra. 3 4. The appellant filed a counter in the OP inter alia stating that the marriage of his son Mr.B.P. Mourya was arranged by him, he presented gold and silver ornaments worth about Rs.5 lakhs, one Bullet motor bike worth Rs.1,70,000/- and performed the marriage by spending about Rs.1 Lakh at Vignesh Kalyanamandapam, Kanipakam. He also stated that he made Mr.B.P. Mourya as one of the Directors of Aditus Laboratories Ltd., obtained loans from State Bank of India, BHEL (R&D) Branch, Hyderabad and invested in the company etc., and for non-payment of dues, a complaint is lodged against him and his son and the same is pending. It is also pleaded that he is entitled to claim and receive death benefits of Mr.B.P.Mourya as per the nomination made by Mr.B.P.Mourya, that he incurred expenditure for the education of his son and marriage with the 1st respondent and that the debts are yet to be discharged and prayed for dismissal of the O.P. 5. Learned Judge of the Family Court after considering the matter vide orders dated 18.07.2024 partly allowed the O.P. declaring that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Mr.B.P. Mourya and that she is entitled to receive the death benefits along with the 3rd respondent / mother of the deceased. It also opined that no decree can be passed with regard to the compassionate appointment to be provided by the 1st respondent company therein. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the order under challenge is not sustainable as learned Judge failed to appreciate the 4 evidence on record in a proper perspective. He contends that the appellant herein was taking care of the education needs of the deceased Mr.B.P. Mourya and incurred huge expenditure even at the time of marriage of his son. He submits that merely because no photographs of the appellant in the marriage of his son Mr.B.P. Mourya depicting the participation of the appellant, are filed, the same cannot be a ground as viewed by the learned Family Judge that the marriage was not performed by the appellant much less, attended to the same. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the appellant herein being the legal heir of the deceased Mr.B.P.Mourya is entitled for the death benefits, more particularly as nominee. The learned counsel submits that in any event, the learned Family Court committed an error in allowing the OP and thereby depriving the appellant, the death benefits to which he is legally entitled to. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the order under challenge. 7. Mr. M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent made submissions to sustain the order under appeal. He submits that on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court while recording cogent reasons allowed the OP and the same warrants no interference of this Court. He also submits that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant to substantiate his case, in any manner and in such circumstances, the contentions advanced on behalf 5 of the appellant merits no appreciation. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 9. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the order under challenge warrants interference of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 10. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that there is no dispute with regard to the marital status of the 1st respondent. Even according to the appellant herein, the marriage of his son Mr.B.P. Mourya was performed with the 1st respondent. It is also not in dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the 3rd respondent was dissolved by virtue of the decree of divorce granted by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in O.P.No.100 of 2005, dated 15.02.2006. Be that as it may. 11. While the 1st respondent claims that her marriage with Mr.B.P.Mourya was performed by his grandparents, the appellant herein denies the same and claims that he performed the marriage by incurring huge expenditure. It is also his case that the expenditure for Mr.Mourya’s education was borne out by him and he had also taken loans from SBI, BHEL Branch for investment in the company, in which Mr.B.P.Mourya is also a Director; that for non-payment of dues, the Bank has initiated criminal action. 6 12. In support of her case, the 1st respondent got examined PWs 1 & 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17. On behalf of the appellant herein RWs1 and 2 were examined and the certified copies of the Order and Decree in HMOP No.100 of 2005 were marked as Exs.B1 and B2 respectively. While the 1st respondent categorically established her case with the support of the evidence on record, R.W.1 (Appellant) in cross-examination categorically admitted that the parents of his divorced wife performed the marriage of Mr.B.P.Mourya and that he did not file any record / material relating to the performance of marriage and purchase of jewellery by him. He also categorically admitted that he did not file any record to show that he was the nominee of the deceased Mr.B.P.Mourya. No evidence was let in with regard to the loans stated to have been obtained from the State Bank of India; the complaint lodged by the Bank for non-payment of the said loan, let alone any proof to establish that his son Mr.B.P.Mourya was a Director of the Pharmaceutical company stated to have been established by the appellant. Thus, the appellant had miserably failed to establish his case, much less his entitlement to the death benefits of the deceased Mr.B.P.Mourya. 13. That apart, though it was contended that being the legal heir of the deceased Mr.B.P.Mourya, the appellant is entitled for the death benefits, the same cannot be appreciated. It is not in dispute that Mr.B.P.Mourya died intestate. As per Hindu Law, wife and the mother of Mr.B.P.Mourya being the class-I heirs are entitled for equal shares in the estate of the deceased. 7 Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant merits no appreciation. The learned Family Judge after considering the matter with reference to the evidence on record had recorded valid conclusions by assigning cogent reasons. This Court see no illegality, much less perversity in the order under challenge and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 15. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO,J Date:26.03.2025. Ssv 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO: 112 OF 2024 Date:26.03.2025 ssv