Allahabad High Court
Smt. Subodh Kumari vs The Additional District Judge Ct.No.1 ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135737
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5354 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt. Subodh Kumari
Respondent :- The Additional District Judge Ct.No.1 And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Kumar Srivastava,Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun K Singh I,K.S. Kushwaha,Ramesh Kumar Shukla,S.K. Kakkar
with
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2477 of 2011
Appellant :- Smt. Subodh Kumari
Respondent :- Smt. Manju Devi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajit Kumar Srivastava,Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Both these matters arise out of the same issue.
2. Petitioner before this Court is the widow of Late Sharad Kumar, who was Security Sailor in the Indian Navy. He unfortunately died during Tsunami rescue operation.
3. F.A.F.O. No. 2477 of 2011 arises out of the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor in Original Misc. Case No. 104 of 2006 by which the application Ka-3 moved by the respondent no. 1, the mother of the deceased, was allowed issuing succession certificate in her favour of Rs. 6 Lakhs.
4. In service book of the deceased Late Sharad Kumar the name of petitioner was recorded as nominee. She has claimed that she is entitled for all the monetary benefits which had accrued after unfortunate demise of Late Sharad Kumar. Original Suit No. 771 of 2006 was filed by respondent no. 3 in writ petition, mother of Late Sharad Kumar, which was decreed on 14.4.2011. Against the judgment of the trial court a civil appeal No. 67 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioner in which an interim order was passed and it was directed that 50% of the amount shall be given to each of two parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent no. 3. Against the said order petitioner had preferred the present writ petition in which the order passed by the appellate court was stayed. During pendency of appeal 50% of the amount in question was already released in favour of petitioner while 50% of the amount to be paid to the mother of the deceased was kept in fixed deposit with a nationalized bank.
5. Sri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, has opposed the writ petition and has relied upon the two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424 as well as in case of Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta, Civil Appeal No. 809 of 2002, decided on 20.8.2009. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the mother of the deceased is also entitled to the amount which has become payable being class I heir as per Hindu Succession Act. According to him, on the death of assured the sum payable to assured becomes payable to the heirs according to the law of succession to which the party belong.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes to the fact that respondent no. 3 is entitled to 50% of share in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Smt. Sarbati Devi (Supra).
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the matter in regard to the release of the amount in favour of respondent no. 3 being class I heir in terms of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act has already been settled by the Apex Court. The controversy raised in the writ petition as well as in F.A.F.O. is no more res integra and has already been settled by the judgment of Apex Court rendered in case of Smt. Sarbati Devi (Supra).
8. In view of the said fact, no interference is required by this Court in the order impugned.
9. Writ petition as well as F.A.F.O. filed by the petitioner fail and stands dismissed.
10. The money kept in interest bearing account with nationalized bank shall be released in favour of respondent no. 3, mother of the deceased Late Sharad Kumar, forthwith.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
Shekhar
