JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2015 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.183/2010. This is the plaintiff’s appeal. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.2 to 4, who are the officers of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited , KPTCL , from disbursing pensionery benefits to the 1 st defendant that is Sri. Shakaregowda, on his retirement in the month of February, 2011. Further, the relief of mandatory injunction was sought directing the 1 st defendant to enter the name of the plaintiff as the nominee in his service register. Another relief was sought for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 (officers of KPTCL) to enter her name as a nominee in the service register of 1 st defendant. Yet another relief of mandatory injunction was sought directing the defendant Nos.2 to 5 to disburse 50% of the pensionery benefits of 1 st defendant to her. 3. The plaintiff claims to be the legally wedded wife of the 1 st defendant who was working as employee of the KPTCL. It appears that a series of litigation and disputes exist between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. The name of the plaintiff not having been entered in the service register of the first defendant to receive pensionery benefits was sought to be challenged by way of filing of the aforesaid suit. 4. The 4 th defendant in whose office the first defendant was working, stated that the first defendant had already been transferred from his company and hence the suit had become infructuous as the relief sought for in the suit could not be done at his office. The same was the defence of the first defendant. 5. The 1 st defendant further stated that he married one K. Sunila, the sixth defendant in the case, on 22.10.1978 as per Hindu Customs and from their wedlock a male child was born on 07.02.1980. She is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and the plaintiff cannot claim any pensionery benefits from his employment. He is under no obligation or duty to include the name of the plaintiff as a nominee in his service registers. She is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and the plaintiff cannot claim any pensionery benefits from his employment. He is under no obligation or duty to include the name of the plaintiff as a nominee in his service registers. She is not entitled for 50% of the pension benefits and she cannot enforce any rights, and she has no legal rights at all to claim the same. He had already nominated the name of the 6 th defendant for pensionary benefits. 6. The defendant No. 1 contended that he filed a suit OS No. 16/1993 before the Civil Judge, Ramanagara, against his father, sister and others for partition and possession of his share in respect of the properties at Kanakapura and got 14 acres to his share and the same was given to him in the compromise petition filed in the said suit, which property, was, in turn given to the Plaintiff (yielding income of 5 lakhs to 6 lakhs per year) in lieu of the maintenance to her wherein the understanding was that she shall not have any claim over the salary and pension benefits of the Plaintiff. He admitted that his son Santhosh has filed a partition suit bearing OS No.73/2009. The defendant No. 1 had filed OS No.363/2009 for declaration that this plaintiff had no right to claim maintenance from his salary and further that a Criminal Misc.No.238/2008 which was filed by the Plaintiff against him under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, had been dismissed by the Court. The plaintiff had got 14 acres of land to her share and got the mutation done in her name and was in possession of the same and later sold the same to various persons by means of 4 different sale deeds. It was stated that since the dispute is about the status of the plaintiff as to whether she is legally wedded wife of the 1 st defendant, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. 7. The issues framed by the Family Court are as follows: – i) Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No. 1? ii) Whether the defendant No. 6 proves that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No. 1? 7. The issues framed by the Family Court are as follows: – i) Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No. 1? ii) Whether the defendant No. 6 proves that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No. 1? iii) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendant No. 1 ought to have shown her name as a nominee in his service register? iv) Whether the defendant No. 1 and 6 proves that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable? v) Whether the defendant No. 6 further proves that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit? vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? Viii) What decree or order? 8. Issue No. 1 and 2 were struck off by an order dated 15.4.2013. In order to prove the case, Plaintiff got herself examined as PW 1 and got marked 12 documents on her behalf as Exs. P1 to P12. The 1 st defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and got marked 38 documents as Exs.D1 to D38. Two other witnesses were examined as DW.2 and DW.3 and the 6 th defendant was examined as DW.4. 9. The trial Court answered the above issues as under: – Issue Nos. 1 & 2 Do not survive for consideration as the same has been struck off as per the order dated 15.04.2013 Issue No.3 In the Negative Issue No.4 In the Affirmative Issue No.5 In the Affirmative Issue No.6 In the Negative Issue No.7 In the Negative Issue No.8 As per the final order 10. The trial Court observed that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1 st defendant. In the cross-examination a suggestion was put to the plaintiff, in which the response was that it is not true to suggest that her marriage with defendant No.1 was subsequent to the marriage of defendant No.1 with the defendant No.6. It is not true to suggest that she is not the legally wedded wife of the defendant No. 1. 11. In the cross-examination a suggestion was put to the plaintiff, in which the response was that it is not true to suggest that her marriage with defendant No.1 was subsequent to the marriage of defendant No.1 with the defendant No.6. It is not true to suggest that she is not the legally wedded wife of the defendant No. 1. 11. The case of the defendant No.1 was noticed that he married the 6 th defendant in the year 1978 as per Hindu customs and from the wedlock a male child was born on 07.02.1980 and the said marriage is still subsisting and the plaintiff has no right to claim his service benefits as she is not his legally wedded wife and the defendant No.1 is not under any obligation to enter the name of the plaintiff in the service register. 12. After considering the evidence on record, the finding of the trial Court is that the defendant No.1 married the 6 th defendant much prior to the marriage of the plaintiff with the 1 st defendant. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed by her. 13. As far as the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Court was concerned, the argument on behalf of the defendant was noted that no declaration regarding the status of the plaintiff being the legally wedded wife of the 1 st defendant was sought. Only after such a declaration, she would have been entitled to such a relief as per the provisions of the Family Courts Act. Considering the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, the trial Court held that the Family Courts assume jurisdiction only if the litigation is between the husband and wife. Therefore the issue No. 4 and 5 were answered in the affirmative. 14. As far as issue Nos. 6 & 7 are concerned, it was held that the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction or mandatory injunction as claimed by her, since she has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1 st defendant. While dealing with Issue Nos. 5 & 6, the trial Court had already noticed that Ex.D29 is the Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj, V.V. Puram, Bengaluru, wherein the name of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 were entered as Groom and Bride. While dealing with Issue Nos. 5 & 6, the trial Court had already noticed that Ex.D29 is the Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj, V.V. Puram, Bengaluru, wherein the name of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 were entered as Groom and Bride. The original register of the Arya Samaj was produced by the Secretary of the Arya Samaj, who appeared as DW.3, which was marked as Ex.D39 and after comparing it with Ex.D29, the same had been returned to the DW.3. It was held that the 1 st defendant had entered the name of his wife that is, defendant No.6 in the Service Register and as the pension benefits are the personal earnings of the defendant No.1, which cannot be claimed by the plaintiff and that too when the pensioner is alive, the plaintiff was not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the suit. It was noted that in the OS No.16/1993, the plaintiff was the 6 th defendant and later transposed as the 2 nd plaintiff and was given the share to an extent of 14 acres fertile land in lieu of maintenance. She had sold the same to various persons. Accordingly, the Issue Nos. 6 & 7 were answered in the negative. 15. The points that would arise for determination are,- i) Whether the plaintiff could maintain the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction without seeking a declaration of her being the wife of the defendant No.1? ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed? 16. We have perused the original record. 17. Ex.D29 is an extract of the Register showing the name of K. Sunila, Daughter of Sri. H.Y. Krishna Rao as the ‘Bride’ and Sri. L.Shankare Gowda, son of Lingegowda as the ‘Bridegroom’, and the Rubber Stamp of the Arya Samaj, Swamy Shraddanand Bhavan Road, V.V. Puram, Bengaluru-560044, is affixed thereon. Ex.D30 is the Birth Certificate of a male child by the name of Santhosh V.S., whose date of birth is shown as 17.02.1980 born at St. Mary’s Hospital. The name of the mother is shown as Smt. Sunila and the name of the father is shown as Sri. L. Shankare Gowda. Both the aforesaid documents have been proved by the DW.1. 18. Mary’s Hospital. The name of the mother is shown as Smt. Sunila and the name of the father is shown as Sri. L. Shankare Gowda. Both the aforesaid documents have been proved by the DW.1. 18. Ex.D8, which has been proved by the DW.1 is a copy of the plaint in OS No.16/1993 filed by the Plaintiff No.1-L. Shankare Gowda, son of D. Linge Gowda, seeking partition. The Plaintiff No.2 is Rukmini C.S. (plaintiff in present suit). Ex.D9 is a “Rajinama” or “Compromise” under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC in the aforesaid OS No.16/1993. Under the Rajinama, the entire properties were divided under 04 schedules viz., A, B, C & D. The ‘A’ Schedule properties were as follows:- “SCHEDULE ‘A’ 1) In suit Item No.1, Northern half, 2) In suit Item Nos. 5 & 6, entire land 3) In suit Item Nos. 7, 8, 9,10, 11, entire land 4) Suit Item No. 21, entire land 5) In suit Item Nos.24, 25, 26 and 27, out of these Sy.Nos. Western 03 acres 10 guntas 6) Suit Item No.28, entire land 7) In suit Items 36, 37 and 38, Eastern 1/3 rd portion of entire lands 8) In suit Item No.43, Southern half 9) Suit No.49 & 50 (entire item) 10) Item No.12 & 13 (entire land)” 19. As per the agreement, ‘A’ Schedule in the compromise petition was allotted to the Plaintiff No.1 and in turn, the 2 nd plaintiff became the absolute owner of ‘A’ Schedule property. The ‘A’ Schedule properties were given to the 2 nd plaintiff. However, the words “In lieu of her maintenance and the plaintiff No.2 have no claim over the salary of the 1 st plaintiff” was scored out and marked as “LO”. The suit was decreed in terms of the aforesaid compromise. 20. What is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff did not seek any declaration as to the validity of her marriage with the defendant No.1 or of her being the wife of the defendant No.1 in the suit. The decrees of injunction sought are equitable reliefs that can be granted, where there is no dispute of entitlement. It is only if a decree for such declaration had been sought in the suit, that the injunction could have been granted. 21. The decrees of injunction sought are equitable reliefs that can be granted, where there is no dispute of entitlement. It is only if a decree for such declaration had been sought in the suit, that the injunction could have been granted. 21. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the Family Court as to the maintainability and jurisdictional issues, given the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. 22. The findings of the Family Court are based on cogent evidence and nothing has been demonstrated by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that would persuade us to hold otherwise. The two points for determination are, therefore, answered in the negative. 23. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed.