Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Lalita Manoj Pawar And Others vs The Union Of India Thr The G.M. Central ... on 22 October, 2019

Smt.Basavarajeshwari W/O. Late ... vs Dastagiri S/O Boabayya Karatagi on 19 September, 2022

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalita vs. M.R.Sunilkumar and Ors., reported in 2015(1) KCCR 353. This Court in the said judgment has held that even the 2nd wife is entitled to claim compensation provided she was living with the deceased husband and she was dependent on the deceased husband. This judgment is not brought to the notice of the tribunal when the case was decided.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S G Pandit - Full Document

The Branch Manager vs P.Anbuchithra on 4 June, 2024

14. A specific issue whether the second wife is entitled to maintain a claim petition has come up before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Lalita Vs. M.R.Sunilkumar and others reported in 2016 ACJ 79 and the Division Bench has observed, “49.Therefore, in the instance case, on fact, it is established that the deceased was living with the second wife: and the second wife and children were pending solely on the income of the deceased. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 of the 1988 Act, it cannot be said that the second wife is not entitled to any maintenance or that she has to be excluded from the compensation payable by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view having regard to the intention of the legislature as reflected in Section 168 of the 1988 Act, where it is a legal representative of the deceased and not a legal heir, who is entitled to maintain a petition and when the definition of the term 'legal representative' includes intermeddler, the second wife, as she would be intermeddling with the estate of the deceased by virtue of the fact that she was living with him at the time of his death would be entitled to maintain a petition. She also would be entitled to compensation, as a dependant, as she was depending on him for her living and sustained loss on account of his death. At the same time the first wife, who 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)Nos.1232 and 1233 of 2017 had been living separately, for whatever reason and even if she was not dependent on the deceased, would be entitled to compensation, as a legally wedded wife and also as a person entitled to the estate of the deceased. Similarly, the daughter of the second wife, though illegitimate, by virtue of Section 16(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, is to be treated as legitimate child. She would be entitled to a share in the estate of the father as class-I her and the petition filed by her can neither be dismissed nor she can be denied the compensation. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the petition filed by the second wife is not maintainable is not correct and therefore, it has to be set aside. The second wife, as dependent on the deceased and an intermeddler of his estate and who has sustained loss is entitled to compensation along with the first wife and her own daughter. Therefore all of them are entitled to compensation. We therefore have to first determine the amount of compensation payable and then specify the person or person to whom, compensation is payable and then specify the amount payable to such persons out of the compensation so determined.”
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt M Rathna vs B Chandra Shekhar on 14 December, 2022

16. The counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 0 ACJ 79 in the case of LALITA vs M R SUNILKUMAR AND OTHERS and contended that this Court considered the scope of the legal representatives and need not necessarily be a wife but the legal representative that a person should have some interest or right in the estate of the deceased and an intermeddler having right or interest in the estate of the deceased would fall within the definition of legal representative 16 and hence, ought not to have dismissed the claim petition as they are also entitled for the compensation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document
1