Bombay High Court
Gadepalli Mythili Ramchadra Murthy vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Government ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:15005 903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
Digitally signed by
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
Date: 2025.04.01
21:02:13 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5752 OF 2023
Mrs. Gadepalli Mythili Ramchandra Murthy
Of Kalyan Indian Inhabitant, Aged 65 years,
Occ.: Service having permanent place of residence
at room No.3, Arjun Apartment,
Golden Co-operative Society, Kolsewadi,
Kalyan (East), Kalyan,
District Thane ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Govt. Pleader, Appellate Side,
High Court, Bombay.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Birth & Death Department,
Kalyan Dombivali Corporation Kalyan.
3. Swarnalaxmi Giribabu Somyajula
also of Kalyan India Inhabitant,
aged about 36 years Occ. Housewife
having permanent address at Harihar Bldg.,
Room No.1801, Madhav Sankalp,
Khadakpada, Kalyan West,
District Thane. ... Respondents
Mr. J.S. Kini a/w Mr. Aum Kini i/b. Ms. Sapna Krishinappa for Petitioner .
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Y.D. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Sandip D. Shinde, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Jay N. Suryavanshi, for the Respondent No.3.
_______________________
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS Page 1 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2025 22:19:43 :::
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE : 1 APRIL 2025
_______________________
JUDGMENT (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, this
Petition is heard finally.
2. This petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India
prays for the following substantive relief:-
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the papers and
proceedings of Order dated 13.06.2022 being Exhibit E hereto
and after perusing the legality and propriety thereof, the same,
be set aside and quashed."
3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 13 June
2022 ("Impugned Order" for short) passed by respondent no.2 by which the
name of the petitioner as wife of her deceased husband i.e. Gadepalli
Ramchandra Murthy came to be subsequently deleted in his death certificate
dated 14 January 2021. In her place, name of one Ms. Gadepalli Kalavati
Murthy ("Ms. Kalavati" for short) was substituted by the respondent no.2 in
exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths
Act, 1969 ("the said Act" for short) read with Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Birth
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
and Death Registration Rules, 2000 ("the said Rules" for short). The case of
the petitioner is that the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles
of natural justice as the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to prove her
claim despite furnishing several documents, supporting material to the
respondent no.2, none of which was considered, to the grave prejudice of the
petitioner.
(A) Factual Matrix :
4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of
one Mr. Gadepalli Ramchandra Murthy i.e. the deceased who expired on 3
December 2020. Pursuant to said demise of the deceased, a death certificate
dated 14 January 2021 was issued by respondent no. 2 which recorded the
petitioner's name as the legally wedded wife of the deceased.
5. The petition as filed notes that respondent no.3 is the daughter of
deceased Kalavati who claimed to be the second wife of the deceased. It is the
petitioner's case that her marriage with the deceased which took place in the
customary manner was solemnised on 24 June 1970 at Manchalakatta Village
in Andhra Pradesh.
6. It appears that respondent no.3 had a grievance on the death
certificate of the deceased initially issued by respondent no.2 which carried the
name of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the deceased. In view
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
thereof, according to the petitioner, the claim of respondent no.3 to the effect
that her deceased mother Ms. Gadepalli Kalavati Murthy (" Ms. Kalavati" for
short) who also claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased is not only
incorrect but also false and unsustainable.
7. A representation dated 1 October 2021 was made by respondent
no.3 claiming to be the daughter of the deceased and Ms. Kalavati out of the
marriage of the deceased with her and accordingly, the name of Ms. Kalavati be
entered in the death certificate of the deceased, as the legally wedded wife of
the deceased. As such representation was not decided by respondent no.2 a
Writ Petition No.2576 of 2022 was filed by respondent no.3 seeking
directions to be issued to respondent no.2 to expeditiously decide the
representation of respondent no.3 dated 1 October 2021.
8. Pursuant to the above, an order dated 8 March 2022 in Writ
Petition No. 2576 of 2022 was passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
directing the respondent no. 2 to expeditiously decide her representation dated
1 October 2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant
to such order, respondent no.2 passed the impugned order dated 13 June 2022
which is assailed by the petitioner in this petition. The respondent no.2
referring to the earlier order of this Court dated 8 March 2022 decided the
representation of respondent no.3 dated 1 October 2021 to the effect that the
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
name of Ms. Kalavati be entered, incorporated in the death certificate of the
deceased in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 along with Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Birth and
Death Registration Rules, 2000. In view thereof, the death certificate of the
deceased initially issued bearing the name of the petitioner as the wife of the
deceased ought not to be treated as valid, in terms of the impugned order
which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
9. It is in such factual backdrop that we have heard learned counsel
for the parties and with their assistance perused the record.
(B) Submissions :-
10. Mr. J.S. Kini, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the impugned order of respondent no. 2 dated 13 June 2022 is unjust, unfair,
illegal and unsustainable. He would, at the very outset, refer to the
representation dated 30 May 2022 addressed by the petitioner to the
respondent no. 2. He would submit that the petitioner had furnished several
documents before respondent no. 2, which would beyond shade of any doubt
prove the fact of marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized
on 24 June 1970 at a village in Andhra Pradesh. Several photographs to
substantiate her marriage with the deceased along with supporting material
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
were annexed to such representation. According to the petitioner, three
children were born out such wedlock between her and the deceased.
11. Mr. Kini would then state that the children studied at Adoni,
Andhra Pradesh. They went to school and then college and the representation
of the petitioner dated 30 May 2022 made to respondent no. 2 contained
documents enclosed to show that the names of the parents in the said
documents were that of the petitioner and the deceased. These would also
clearly prove that the children of the petitioner were born in wedlock between
her and the deceased. Further, annexed is a copy of the documents relating to
Bharati Vidyalaya Telagu Medium Education Society, Trust formed by the
deceased, along with the photographs of the members of the said Trust and
the Trust building.
12. Mr. Kini would then refer to a Will dated 4 February 2008 of the
deceased to submit that the said will categorically mentions the name of the
petitioner who at that time was 53 years of age along with the name of the
three children of the petitioner and the deceased. He also pointed out from the
Will that the deceased bequeathed the scheduled properties acquired by him
through various registered sale deeds to the petitioner. Thus, Mr. Kini would
submit that all such documents would establish that the petitioner was the
legally wedded wife of the deceased and her name was thus, rightly mentioned
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
as the wife in the death certificate dated 14 January 2021 initially issued by the
respondent no. 2. For such reasons, no change was warranted in the death
certificate of the deceased.
13. However, the respondent no. 3 has a different story to tell. The
respondent no. 3 being the daughter from the second marriage of the deceased
portrays a completely different side of the coin. Mr. Jay Suryavanshi, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 3 would submit that there is no error of facts
and/or any law in the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 which is
assailed in this petition. He would place reliance on an affidavit-in-reply dated
24 January 2025 of the respondent no. 3 herself and adopts its contents.
14. According to Mr. Suryavanshi, on the basis of such affidavit-in-
reply of respondent no. 3 would submit that the name of respondent no. 3's
deceased mother, Ms. Kalavati who passed away on 21 December 1997
appeared on the passport issued on 19 March 2001 of the deceased as his wife.
Further, after the death of the deceased on 3 December 2020 respondent no. 2
issued a death certificate dated 3 December 2020 of the deceased. He would
urge that it was totally shocking that petitioner's daughter, Ms. Gauri Shriniwas
Haridas who works as a Clerk at the Sai Education Society Trust formed by the
deceased, filed an application on 17 December 2020 for adding the name of
the petitioner on the death certificate of the deceased. In fact, to the contrary
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
an application was filed on 21 December 2020 by respondent no. 3 for
inserting the name of respondent no. 3's mother, Ms. Kalavati on the death
certificate of the deceased. However, according to the respondent no. 3 without
giving an opportunity of being heard an order dated 24 January 2021 was
passed by respondent no. 2 wrongly inserting the name of the petitioner in the
death certificate of the deceased.
15. Mr. Suryavanshi would further submit that as soon as respondent
no. 3 came to know about the marriage registration certificate dated 18
October 2008 of the petitioner, she immediately made an application under
the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent no.3 accordingly on 23
April 2021 from the response to the RTI Application learnt that the petitioner
had never annexed any marriage invitation card nor filed an affidavit on
Rs.100/- Stamp Paper as required. She had also not provided any evidence
about the marriage, despite which the marriage certificate dated 18 October
2008 was issued. Thus, such document, according to respondent no.3, is false
and unreliable which can never be relied/acted upon.
16. Mr. Kini in his rejoinder submissions would refer to an additional
affidavit of the petitioner dated 9 January 2025 to submit that as the situation
worsened there were criminal proceedings also initiated, i.e., an FIR filed on
complaints made by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner. Mr. Kini
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
would refer to an order passed by the Supreme Court dated 31 October 2022
granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, in our view, these aspects
are neither germane nor relevant in deciding this writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(C) Analysis and Conclusion:
17. We have carefully perused the impugned order in the context of
the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the parties.
Ordinarily, considering that the issues raised in the petition entail adjudication
of several disputed questions of fact, we would have refrained from
entertaining this petition on merits in the given facts and circumstances, but
for the complexion and nature of the proceedings and reliefs sought by the
petitioner. In this context, Mr. Kini would urge that the primary and basic
contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 14
June 2022 is passed in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice.
As, it is the case of the petitioner that she did not get an opportunity to
represent her case before the said respondent authority. More particularly, there
were several documents relied upon by the petitioner before the respondent
no.2 to make out a case justifying the earlier entry in her name in the death
certificate as correct, contrary to the decision of the said respondent to
substitute her name for the name of Ms. Kalavati as the wife, in the said death
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
certificate of the deceased. In this regard, with the assistance of Mr. Kini we
have perused the contents set out more particularly in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the
petition. This bears reference to several documents like photographs of the
petitioner with the deceased in their marriage ceremony, invitation cards,
thread ceremony of the petitioner's son, joint family photographs, appointment
letters in regard to the Trust along with supporting documents and other
records where the petitioner's name appears as wife of the deceased. These are
in the nature of evidence that may assist the petitioner in proving that the
petitioner is the wife of the deceased to contend that her name was rightly
included initially in the death certificate of the deceased which was
subsequently deleted by the impugned order. In this regard, Mr. Kini would
also place reliance on the list of documents (supra) filed by the petitioner
which in his submission would have had a material bearing on the decision of
respondent no.2 had the same been considered. We find that there is nothing
in the impugned order to even remotely demonstrate that the respondent no.2
has even considered such material placed on record on behalf of the petitioner,
much less recording any finding on the relevance of such material or
documents of the petitioner to prove her case.
18. Based on the above, we find that the least expected from
respondent no.2 was to render a finding on such documents/ material relied
upon by the petitioner particularly when the same were furnished to
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
respondent no.2 for consideration, in a matter where rights of contesting
parties are involved. The cardinal legal principle of audi alteram partem ought
not to be reduced to a mere formality which appears to be the case, in the given
facts and circumstances, with regard to the impugned order.
19. We may further observe that the petitioner also contended that
she was made a Trustee of the Sai Education Trust along with the deceased.
There have been allegations with regard to taking over such Trust which also
involves disputes concerning the respondent no.3 and her brother. So also
there is a reference to the Will of the deceased and the distribution of the
properties under the said Will affecting the rights of the petitioner and the
contesting respondent no.3. According to the petitioner certain changes are
required to be made in the death certificate of the deceased in deleting the
name of Ms Kalavati which would have to be proved to the satisfaction of
respondent no. 2, as stipulated under Section 15 of the said Act read with Rule
11 of the said Rules. The mandate of law in this regard is amiss in the
impugned order.
20. We have also perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent
no.3 dated 24 January 2025. By such reply the respondent no.3 has set out her
version along with documents and material to support the claim of her mother
late Ms. Kalavati as stated to be the wife of the deceased for which her name as
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
claimed by respondent no. 3 was rightly added in the death certificate of the
deceased vide the impugned order. Such affidavit-in-reply would also refer to
some criminal proceedings in the nature of FIR etc. filed by respondent no.3
levelling allegations of impersonation etc. against the petitioner. However,
being fully conscious of the legal confines of our jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, we cannot enter such disputed territory.
21. For the reasons as noted by us hereinabove, in our view, the
impugned order cannot be sustained mainly on the ground that it is contrary to
the well settled principles of natural justice. There is no consideration of the
case sought to be made out by the petitioner along with the plethora of
documents furnished by her to prove her case before respondent no. 2 which
ought to have been gone into by respondent no.2. The impugned order is on
the face of it mechanical and lacks due and proper application of mind which
cannot stand legal scrutiny and ought to be set aside. We, therefore pass the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 13 June 2022 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(ii) The proceedings stand remanded to respondent no.2 for de
novo consideration.
903-WP-5752-2023 - GADEPALLI MURTHY.DOC
(iii) The said respondent shall pass a reasoned order after hearing
the parties on merits and in accordance with law. This shall be
done as expeditiously as possible, in any event within 8 weeks
from the date this order is presented to respondent no.2 who
shall convey its order/decision to the parties. All rights and
contentions of the parties, to be urged before the respondent
no.2 are expressly kept open.
(iv) It is clarified that in the event any party is aggrieved by the
order which respondent no.2 may pass, it is open to such party
to institute Civil Suit to assert its legal rights, if any. All rights
and contentions of the parties in such proceedings are expressly
kept open.
(vi) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
