Allahabad High Court
Sepawali Ale @ Sepali Bagale vs Union Of India Thru.The Secy. Ministry ... on 22 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad
Sitting At Lucknow
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22597-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4292 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sepawali Ale @ Sepali Bagale
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru.The Secy. Ministry Of Defense, New Delhi And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Devansh Singh Chauhan,Manoj Kumar,Sanjay Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor Genral of India and Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal In Original Application No. 463 of 2018 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected.
3. The alleged husband of the petitioner namely Late NK Lal Bahadur Ale(deceased ex-serviceman) was enrolled in the Army on 22.11.1962 and discharged from the service on 29.7.1981. The deceased ex-serviceman was granted service pension. He died on 17.6.2009. After his death, the petitioner claimed for grant of family pension which was rejected by the respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the tribunal but the proceedings have failed.
4. The petitioner is stated to be the second wife of the deceased ex-serviceman and the issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased ex-serviceman and entitled for grant of family pension or not.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased ex-serviceman being a Gorkha person was entitled to solemnize second marriage during existence of the first marriage as per the judgment passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai in the case of Smt. Gnanasundarai versus Union of India in Original Application No. 168 of 2013. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong passed in the case of Smt. Dhansari Rana versus Union of India and others in the writ petition(c) no. 276 of 2018. Learned counsel also submit that the tribunal has wrongly interpreted the provision given under the Army Regulation No. 333 of the Defence Services Regulations framed under the authority of Section 192 of the Army Act, 1950.
6. In view of the judgments referred to above, an ex-serviceman being Gorkha may solemnize a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
7. The tribunal has dealt with the matter in detail and observed that the second marriage was contracted on the basis of customary law of village panchayat and after absconding of first wife Smt. Bhim Kali, the deceased ex-serviceman in absence of a decree of divorce, should have followed the procedure to validate the second marriage in accordance with regulations framed under the Army Act. It is admitted that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was not disclosed to the departmental authorities with a view to avoid disciplinary action.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Life Time Arrears due and payable to the deceased were disbursed to her which gives affirmation that the authorities have accepted the petitioner to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased ex-serviceman. In support of this contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhansari Rana versus Union of India and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Megh 218 wherein the Court has observed that the Life Time Arrears due and payable to the deceased was disbursed to the petitioner would only prove that this objection has become redundant at this juncture, as inference could be drawn to the affirmation of such union between the parties by the concerned authorities. The court has also observed that the the first wife of the deceased has since expired, the second wife is accordingly entitled to the family pension.
9. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the first wife of the deceased ex-serviceman had eloped with someone. In the service record, it is necessary to mention a person of choice so that in case of any casualty or death of the employee, the arrears or dues may be disbursed to that person but it does not mean that the name mentioned in the official record certifies that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the deceased employee to inform the authorities about the elopement of the first wife and the solemnization of the second marriage but in the present case there is no proof or document on record which may establish that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner as per the provisions applicable.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the Kindred Roll and names of Heirs, it is mentioned that the first wife of the deceased ex-serviceman eloped with someone and the deceased ex-serviceman has solemnized second marriage with the petitioner. Learned counsel also stated that the death certificate of the first wife of the deceased ex-serviceman, her name is mentioned as Bhumikala Bagale which shows that she had solemnized marriage with Purna Bahadur Bagale Magar after eloping from the deceased ex-serviceman.
11. The family details produced by the petitioner mention that the first wife of the deceased ex-serviceman has eloped but all the children were stated to have born out of the wedlock with first wife during the relevant period. The matter was investigated by the authorities and the claim of the petitioner for the family pension was denied. As such, it is manifest that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was not disclosed to the authorities to avoid disciplinary action. There is no valid proof or document on the basis of which it can be said that the first marriage was dissolved by the court of law.
12. The reliance made by the petitioner on the death certificate of the first wife wherein her name is mentioned as Bhumikala Bagale does not support her case in any manner. The petitioner has to prove her case on the basis of valid documents or evidence in support of her contention that the deceased ex-serviceman had informed the authorities about his second marriage without divorce/separation from the first wife. Even if it is presumed that the first wife of the deceased ex-serviceman eloped with someone, the second marriage without the legal validation is not acceptable in the eye of law.
13. The judgment and order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed.
[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]
Order Date :- 22.4.2025
Mahesh
