Bombay High Court
Sau. Laxmi Durgaiya Sullewar W/O ... vs Aruna, Ex. W/O Durgaiya Pocham ... on 17 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp4303.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4303/2014
1. Sau Laxmi Durgaiya Sullewar
w/o Sh. Durgaiya Pocham Sullewar,
aged about 50 Yrs.
2. Durgaiya Pocham Sullewar
s/o late Pocham Sullewar,
aged about 60 Yrs.
3. Sahadev Durgaiya Sullewar
s/o Sh. Durgaiya Pocham Sullewar,
aged about 19 Yrs.
4. Shrankanth Durgaiya Sullewar
s/o Sh. Durgaiya Pocham Sullewar,
aged about 17 Yrs. (minor), through
his mother Sau Laxmi Durgaiya Sullewar,
the petitioner No.1.
All the petitioners are R/o Gupta Chowk,
Surendragarh, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur - 6. ..Petitioners.
..Versus..
1. Aruna ex. w/o Durgaiya Pocham Sullewar,
R/o c/o Sh. Ajay Kashi,
behind Tar Bahar Masjid,
Bilaspur - Chhattisgarh.
2. The Commanding Officer,
Head Quarters Maintenance Command,
Indian Air force, Yayusena Nagar,
Nagpur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- -
Ms. Neelam A. Biala, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Jayshree A. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:42:22 :::
2 wp4303.14
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 17.6.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Neelam A. Biala, Advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Jayshree A.
Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for the
respondent No.2.
2.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Family Court
restraining the respondent No.2 from disbursing any amount to any person whose
name is entered in the service record of Durgaiya Sullewar, after deleting the name of
Aruna (present respondent No.1)
4. The present respondent No.1 - Aruna filed petition before the Family Court
praying for declaration that the alleged marriage between Sau Laxmi (present petitioner
No.1) and Durgaiya (present petitioner No.2) and the nominations made in service
records of Durgaiya on the basis of alleged marriage are null and void. In these
proceedings, the present respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary
injunction restraining the present respondent No.2 from disbursing the retirement
3 wp4303.14
benefits. The Family Court, by the impugned order, has granted temporary injunction
as sought for by the present respondent No.1.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the present petitioner Nos.1 and 2,
though party before the Family Court, are not given any notice and are not granted
hearing and the application filed by the present respondent No.1 is decided. The
petitioners have raised specific ground to this effect in the petition. The respondent
No.1 has not been able to point out that the petitioners were given notice and were
heard by the Family Court before passing the impugned order.
In these circumstances, to sub-serve the ends of justice the following order is
passed:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The Family Court is directed to decide the application filed by the present
respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, afresh after hearing the present
petitioners.
(iii) Till the application filed by the present respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 is decided, the order passed on 24th July, 2013 shall continue to be operative.
(iv) With the above observations, the petition is disposed.
(v) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
