Judgment wp1322.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1322 OF 2017.
1. Shri Bhimrao Pandurang Ramteke,
Aged about 68 years, Occupation
-Retired Soldier, resident of Vrundawan
Nagar, Behind Kundan Plaza,
Urjanagar Road, Chandrapur.
2. Smt. Vandana w/o Bhimrao Ramteke,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation
-Household, resident of Vrundawan
Nagar, Behind Kundan Plaza,
Urjanagar Road, Chandrapur. ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The Union of India,
through its Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi 110 011.
2. The Mahar Regiment,
Abhilekh Karyalaya,
Sagar - 470001 (M.P.)
3. Zilla Sainik Welfare Office,
New Administrative Building,
Chandrapur - 442401 (MS). ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr.Vishal Anand, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. N. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. A.V. Palshikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.3.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:18:13 :::
Judgment wp1322.17
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND R.B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : JULY 31, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Heard Shri Vishal Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. N. Chaubey, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. By their consent and considering the controversy involved in the Writ Petition, the same is taken up for final disposal, by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.
2. Petitioner no.1 is a retired soldier and petitioner no.2 is his wife. Prayer in the petition is to direct respondents to add name of petitioner no.2 as a nominee in the service record of petitioner no.1 for the purpose of family pension and other benefits. Request has not been entertained as respondents found that petitioner no.2 is second wife.
3. As cognizance of request was not being taken, present petition has been filed.
4. Ms. Chaubey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 is relying upon reply-affidavit. She states that story of marriage being ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:18:13 ::: Judgment wp1322.17 3 solemnized on 17.01.2001 militates with the children born in the family in 1990 and 1994. She also points out that petitioner no.1 had moved an application way back on 21.12.1994 for adding name of petitioner no.2 and at that time, it was pointed out to him that name of second wife could not have been substituted.
5. In present matter petitioner has pointed out a decree of divorce in Hindu Marriage Petition No. F-71/1990 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur on 08.01.2001. He has further stated that he has solemnized marriage with petitioner no.2 thereafter on 17.01.2001. The marriage registration certificate issued on 27.04.2004 by the Registrar of Marriage is also annexed by him along with the petition.
6. In view of these developments, which are after the dissolution of earlier marriage, it is apparent that name of petitioner no.2 needs to be taken as nominee of petitioner no.1.
7. Accordingly we make rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (A), with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:18:13 :::