JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 16.01.2016 in O.S.No.65/2012 on the file of Prl.Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the suit filed by her came to be dismissed, appellant/plaintiff filed this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 r/w Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as per their rank in the original suit. 3. In the said suit, plaintiff sought relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendant Nos.2 to 5 from disbursing retirement benefits to defendant No.1, till he makes arrangements for the residence and maintenance of plaintiff. 4. Briefly stated, the averments of the plaintiff are to the following effect:- (a) Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, their marriage having been solemnised on 13.06.1986. After marriage, they led a happy married life. However, they are not having any issues. In view of dowry harassment, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant No.1. Since he deserted and neglected her, she filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C in C.Mis.62/1999 which came to be allowed on 03.07.2001. Plaintiff’s petition for enhancement of maintenance in C.Mis.155/2005 also came to be allowed on 06.12.2008 (b) Since defendant No.1 was a defaulter, plaintiff filed petition for recovery of maintenance in C.Mis.126/2011 under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which came to be allowed on 06.08.2012. (c) Defendant No.1 is having illicit relationship with one Manjula. He is working in the Health Department. Being the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, plaintiff is having a legal right to claim the status of nomination and pensionery benefits of defendant No.1. He is making attempts to change the nomination in his service records to deprive plaintiff from claiming retirement benefits. After his retirement, defendant No.1 is going to receive the monetary benefits from the office of defendant Nos.2 to 5. Hence, plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction against defendant Nos.2 to 5 from disbursing the retirement benefits till defendant No.1 makes arrangements for the residence and maintenance of plaintiff. (d) After due service of summons, defendant No.1 has appeared and filed written statement to the following effect: (i) Except the relationship with plaintiff, all other averments are denied. He has averred that he has been acquitted in C.C.No.1191/1999, which was a case registered for dowry harassment. (d) After due service of summons, defendant No.1 has appeared and filed written statement to the following effect: (i) Except the relationship with plaintiff, all other averments are denied. He has averred that he has been acquitted in C.C.No.1191/1999, which was a case registered for dowry harassment. The maintenance amount awarded is enhanced. Except claiming maintenance amount, plaintiff is not having any legal right to claim nomination in his service records. He is having a right to nominate any person of his choice as the nominee in service records. (ii) Defendant No.1 alone is entitled to receive the retirement benefits. Since, the marriage between the defendant No.1 and plaintiff is subsisting, plaintiff has a right to claim only maintenance from defendant No.1 and no other rights. This Court is not having jurisdiction to try the suit and prays to dismiss the same. 5. Based on these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. “Whether the plaintiff proves that she is having legal right to claim all status of nomination in the pensionery documents of the first defendant? 2. Whether the court fee is not sufficient as contended in the written statement? (treated as preliminary issue) 3. Whether the defendant proves that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit (treated as preliminary issue)? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief as prayed? 5. What order or decree?” 6. During the trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked. Defendant did not lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court dismissed the suit by answering the issues as under: “Issue No.1: Negative Issue No.2 & 3 : Do not survive for Consideration Issue No.4: Negative Issue No.5: As per final order for the following” 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and decree, plaintiff has filed this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 9. The points that arise for our consideration are as follows: (i) Having regard to the fact that the pension and terminal benefits which defendant No.1 is entitled are his self-acquired property, whether plaintiff has any right to restrain him from receiving the same and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 from disbursing it to defendant No.1? (ii) What order? 10. 9. The points that arise for our consideration are as follows: (i) Having regard to the fact that the pension and terminal benefits which defendant No.1 is entitled are his self-acquired property, whether plaintiff has any right to restrain him from receiving the same and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 from disbursing it to defendant No.1? (ii) What order? 10. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff who is the appellant before this Court argued that as a legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, she is entitled for her nomination in his service record and in the event of defendant No.1 predeceasing her she is entitled for family pension and other terminal benefits and after coming to know that he is trying to change the nomination, plaintiff filed the suit. He further submitted that without appreciating this aspect, the trial Court has dismissed the suit and the impugned Judgment and decree suffers from non-application of mind. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel representing defendants supported the impugned Judgment and decree. Learned counsel, representing defendant No.1, who is the contesting defendant urged that during the lifetime of defendant No.1, plaintiff is not having any right to claim family pension or terminal benefits on account of his retirement. The right claimed by the plaintiff is a speculative one dependent on a contingent event of defendant No.1 predeceasing the plaintiff. He submitted that pension and terminal benefits are the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and on his retirement, he is entitled for the same. In the event of defendant No.1 dying while still in service and plaintiff surviving defendant No.1, she may be entitled for family pension and other terminal benefits and in such an event, she may apply to the authorities seeking for the same. He further submitted that during the lifetime of defendant No.1, plaintiff is not having a legal right to claim family pension or other terminal benefits. 12. Plaintiff is wife of the defendant No.1. He was a Government servant and at the relevant point of time he was working as Second Division Assistant under defendant No.5. 13. Plaintiff has alleged that even after five years of marriage, as she did not beget any children, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and defendant No.1 was having illicit relationship with another woman. He was a Government servant and at the relevant point of time he was working as Second Division Assistant under defendant No.5. 13. Plaintiff has alleged that even after five years of marriage, as she did not beget any children, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and defendant No.1 was having illicit relationship with another woman. It is the case of the plaintiff that the petitions were filed by her for maintenance and also enhancement of maintenance as well as under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are allowed and she has a right to recovery of the maintenance granted. 14. Defendant No.2, though admitted the relationship between him and plaintiff, has denied that he had driven away the plaintiff from matrimonial home. He has also denied of having any illicit relationship with another woman. He claimed that CC.No.1191/1999 filed by the plaintiff alleging dowry harassment, etc., is dismissed. Defendant No.1 denied that plaintiff is having any right either for pension or terminal benefits, which he is entitled to, so as to seek relief of permanent injunction. 15. Admittedly, the pension and other terminal benefits which a Government employee is entitled to are his self-acquired property. Except defendant No.1, no other has any right over the same and consequentially plaintiff cannot seek a relief for permanent injunction restraining him from receiving the same or the remaining defendants from disbursing it to him. According to the defendant No.1, the maintenance which plaintiff is entitled to is regularly paid and consequentially plaintiff has no right to create any charge over the terminal benefits, so payable to him and such being the case, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. 16. Plaintiff has alleged that prior to the filing of the suit, she came to know that defendant No.1 is trying to change the nomination made in her favour and with that information, she chose to file the suit. In law, a nominee of a Government servant does not get any right over the amount payable. He/she is only entitled to receive the amount and thereafter to share it among all the sharers as per the rules of succession applicable. The right of a nominee will arise only after the death of the employee. In law, a nominee of a Government servant does not get any right over the amount payable. He/she is only entitled to receive the amount and thereafter to share it among all the sharers as per the rules of succession applicable. The right of a nominee will arise only after the death of the employee. During the lifetime of the employee neither the nominee nor any other sharer has any right over the amount in question. Plaintiff being the wife has a right of maintenance and at the most she may seek creation of charge over the said amount if defendant No.1 defaults in paying the maintenance. But, she cannot prevent defendant No.1 from receiving the pension and other terminal benefits, which he has earned by virtue of being employee of Government. 17. Consequently, defendant Nos.2 to 5 cannot be prevented from disbursing the said amount to defendant No.1 on the ground that he has not made provision for the residence or maintenance of the plaintiff. The right, if any, of the plaintiff to claim family pension would arise only after the death of defendant No.1, provided plaintiff survives him. If plaintiff dies before defendant No.1, there is no question of disbursing any family pension or other terminal benefits to her. Thus, the right if any, of the plaintiff to claim family pension is contingent on the death of defendant No.1 and plaintiff surviving him. Therefore, the suit is nothing but a speculative one filed only with an intention to prevent defendant No.1 from getting the pensionery and other terminal benefits. 18. Taking into consideration all these aspects the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. There are no grounds or justification to interfere with the impugned Judgment and decree and therefore appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, what remains is the fact that, in the event defendant No.1 dies and the plaintiff is entitled to family pension, then she can claim the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.