Ram Phal vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11560 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Phal vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home ... on 15 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
Reserved on 09.10.2025
 
Delivered on 15.10.2025
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
WRIT  A No. - 3313 of 2017
 

 
Ram Phal
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Ors.
 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi, Beena Mishra, Bhairo Nath, Bhoj Raj Singh, Ravi Dwivedi, Shailendra Singh, Vineet Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
C.S.C.
 

 

 
Court No. - 25
 

 
HONBLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief for quashing the order dated 22.07.2016, passed by Respondent No. 4, Additional Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Sitapur, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974") has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has solemnized third marriage during the subsistence of the second marriage, which is a disqualification with respect to the satisfaction of the appointing authority regarding general qualifications for the grant of compassionate appointment under Rule 9(c) of the Rules, 1974.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Sri Nathha Ram, died on 21.06.2011 while serving as a Peon under Respondent No. 4, Additional Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Sitapur. After the death of the father of the petitioner, an application dated 04.11.2011 was submitted by the mother of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted applications dated 10.07.2012 and 04.01.2013 for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, petitioner submitted another application dated 09.12.2014 upon being advised that he was eligible for compassionate appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). The application of the petitioner dated 09.12.2014 was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Head Office, Allahabad.

4. Thereafter, a decision was taken and vide Letter No. 18/ए-सेवा० (पीटीसी)/2016 dated 10.06.2016, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Personnel, Uttar Pradesh Police Headquarters, Allahabad, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that he had solemnized marriage with another woman during the subsistence of earlier marriage. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner, as per the letter dated 10.06.2016, was communicated to him via registered post through a covering letter dated 22.07.2016, issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Sitapur.

5. In fact, the petitioner's first wife, namely Smt. Pushpa Devi, had passed away, thereafter, he solemnized marriage with Smt. Ashok Kumari. During the subsistence of his marriage with Smt. Ashok Kumari, the petitioner solemnized third marriage with another woman, with whom he has a son. The said third wife is also currently residing with the petitioner.

6. Smt. Ashok Kumari, wife of the petitioner, filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1955), registered as Original Suit No. 2793 of 2014 in the Court of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, which was finally allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2019. Thus, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner married another woman during the subsistence of his earlier marriage with Smt. Ashok Kumari, at the time when he applied for compassionate appointment under Rules, 1974, which constitutes a disqualification under Rule 9(c) of the said Rules.

7. In paragraph no.11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he solemnized second marriage with the consent of his first wife and was living with her with her consent.

8. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, duly sworn by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Sitapur, it has been specifically stated in paragraph no.3 that, in fact, a written complaint dated 04.08.2011 was made by Smt. Ashok Kumari to the Principal of Police Training College, Sitapur, seeking action against her husband, i.e., the petitioner in the present writ petition. A copy of the said complaint dated 04.08.2011 has also been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. CA-1.

9. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the fact relating to the complaint made by Smt. Ashok Kumari was not denied. Rather, it has been stated that a divorce suit bearing Original Suit No.2793 of 2014 had been filed and that he married to third wife after obtaining a customary divorce from his second wife. The relevant paragraph no. 4 of the rejoinder affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:

4. That in reply to the contents of para-4 of counter affidavit it is very respectfully submitted that Ashok Kumar was second wife of the deponent who is service woman and who could not conceive any child and as such, filed divorce suit No-2793 of 2014 in the court of Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow however she was residing separately from the petitioner for last two years prior to filing divorce suit. It is further very respectfully submitted that petitioner has kept third wife after obtaining custom divorce from his second wife i.e. Ashok Kumari and for obtaining legal divorce, proceeding under competent court of law is pending.

10. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit, duly sworn on 11.07.2019, in which it has been stated that customary divorce among the Scheduled Castes is recognized and recorded in the Government Gazetteers and has the force of law under Section 29 of the Act, 1955. The relevant extract from the Government Gazetteer has been annexed with the supplementary rejoinder affidavit as Annexure no.SRA-2 and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

Divorce

Before 1955 Hindu law did not recognise divorce except among the Scheduled Castes. The dissolution of marriage among them was, however, possible only with the sanction of the community panchayat. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, has legalised divorce under certain conditions and circumstances. The Muslim law permits the husband to divorce the wife on payment of mehar (stipulated amount fixed at the time of marriage). The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, gives under certain conditions, the right to seek dissolution of marriage to the wife also. Among the Tharus divorce is casy.

Generally women seek divorce only as a last resort, when there is no alternative left to them. Men are more prone to seek divorce in the expectation of a better life partner, which is much easier for them to obtain than their female counterparts.

People in the society do not view the divorces with equanimity. They are rather looked down with contempt. It is generally the male partner who initiates the proceedings, and more often than not, the spouse resists the divorce. In most cases the parties indulge in character assassination. Notwithstanding the legalisation of the divorce and slow recognition by the society, a general feeling in the society still persists that if a spouse could not adjust and carry on with his/her life partner he/she would not easily be able to adjust and lead a happy married life, in case she/he to remarry, after the grant of the decree of divorce.

During the period, from 1973 to 1977 about 22 cases of divorce were referred to the court, out of which divorce was granted in four cases. Twelve applications for divorce were filed by men and ten by women.

11. Apart from that, the petitioner filed another supplementary affidavit, duly sworn on 19.05.2023, in which the judgment and order dated 23.12.2019 has been annexed, whereby the divorce petition filed by Smt. Ashok Kumari in the year 2014 was decreed.

12. This Court, after due consideration of the undisputed facts as stated hereinabove, finds that the case of the petitioner is solely based on his assertion that he obtained a customary divorce from Smt. Ashok Kumari in the year 2009, which is duly recognized under Section 29 of the Act, 1955. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that the disqualification clause under Rule 9(c) of the Rules, 1974, is not attracted in his case.

13. However, the said contention of the petitioner is completely misconceived, as the relevant extract relied upon by the petitioner does not recognize any form of customary divorce. Rather, it merely states that, prior to the enforcement of the Act, 1955, Hindu law did not recognize divorce at all except among Scheduled Castes and even then, only with the sanction of the community panchayat.

14. The only interpretation of the statement contained in the extract, as reproduced hereinabove, is that divorce was not recognized among Hindus except among Scheduled Castes and that too only with community sanction before the enactment of the Act, 1955. After the commencement of the Act, 1955, divorce can only be obtained by following the procedure provided under the Act, 1955 and only such divorce is legally recognized.

15. The statutory provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules, 1974, specifically bar the grant of compassionate appointment to a candidate who has more than one wife living.

16. It is an admission on the part of the petitioner that he had two wives living at the same time and Smt. Ashok Kumari obtained a divorce by filing a divorce suit in the year 2014, which was decreed vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2019.

17. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 22.07.2016, based on the decision taken in Letter No.18/ए-सेवा० (पीटीसी)/2016 dated 10.06.2016, suffers from no infirmity or illegality, being strictly in accordance with the statutory provision contained in Rule 9(c) of the Rules, 1974.

18. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

19. No order as to costs.

(Amitabh Kumar Rai, J)

October 15, 2025

Ashish Dewal