Thursday, 30, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shri Bhimrao Pandurang Ramteke An ... vs The Union Of India, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5297 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 5297 Bom
Judgement Date : 31 July, 2017

Bombay High Court
Shri Bhimrao Pandurang Ramteke An ... vs The Union Of India, Through ... on 31 July, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
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

Judgment wp1322.17

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.





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter