Gauhati High Court
Renu Begum @ Renu Khatun vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 14 March, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010123392018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3772/2018
RENU BEGUM @ RENU KHATUN
W/OLT. MOTLEB HUSSAIN
R/O GIRIJAPATH, NEAR 10 APBN GATE, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, P.S.
DISPUR,
DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN - 781019.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -06.
2:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ( BIEO)
SRIMANTAPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN - 781005.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BIEO
SRIMANTAPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN - 781005.
4:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDANGAON
Page No.# 2/6
BELTOLA
ASSAM
PIN - 781029.
5:SMTI. MONUWARA BEGUM
W/O LT.MOTLEB HUSSAIN
R/O BONGORA
ISLAMPUR DEURALI
P.S. PALASHBARI
P.O. BONGORA
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN -781015
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ZAMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 14.03.2022
1. Heard Mr. A. Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K.
Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for
the respondent no. 4 and Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner being the second wife of the Late Md.
Motleb Hussain, the petitioner should be given 50% of the family pension and other
pensionary benefits along with the first wife, who is the respondent no.5.
3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner married Late Md. Motleb Hussain on
11.10.1989 and on 01.08.1998 her husband divorced the respondent no. 5 by issuing
Talaqnama before the Sadar Kazi, Kamrup. Thereafter, the late Md. Motleb Hussain executed
an affidavit dated 17.03.2012, which states that he has two wives, namely the respondent
no. 5 and the petitioner, who are both living with him. Late Md. Motleb Hussain states in the
affidavit that he has no objection, if his salary is equitably divided between himself and two
Page No.# 3/6
wives by the respondent authorities. Further, his pension benefit should also be divided into
three parts i.e., between him and his two wives. Thereafter, the late Md. Motleb Hussain
wrote a letter dated 22.03.2017 to the S. P., Peru Investigating Economic Offences, Assam
(respondent no.3) stating that he had retired on 31.07.2016 and that he had divorced the
respondent no. 5 on 01.08.1998.
The Late Md. Motleb Hussain had also requested the authorities to incorporate the
petitioner's name in his service book, for the purpose of regularising the pension payable to
him.
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had looked after her one
daughter, while looking after the four sons of the respondent no. 5, as the respondent no.5
had left her husband. He prays that the family pension should be divided equally between the
petitioner and the respondent no.5, in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in case of
Sirazun Nessa Vs. State of Assam & Ors. Reported in 2011 (4) GLT 751.
5. Mr. J. K. Goswami and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsels for the State respondents
submit that as there are disputed questions of fact involved, the petitioner should approach
the Civil Court.
6. Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the petitioner is
not the wife of the Late Md. Motleb Hussain. He also submits that Talaqnama had never been
communicated to the respondent no. 5, during the lifetime of the Late Md. Motleb Hussain.
He further submits that the Talaqnama, which is annexed to the writ petition is a fabricated
document. He also submits that as the name of the respondent no. 5 is recorded as the wife
of the Late Md. Motleb Hussain in the service book, the family pension and other pensionary
benefits should be given to the respondent no. 5 only.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The submissions made by the counsels for the parties clearly show that there are
disputed questions of fact, which this Court is not equipped to decide, as the same would
Page No.# 4/6
require recording of evidence. The above being said, this Court finds contradiction in the
documents submitted by the petitioner, in as much as, Annexure-II of the writ petition is a
talaqnama dated 01.08.1998, which basically states that the late Md. Motleb Hussain had
divorced the respondent no.5. However, Annexure-III of the writ petition is an affidavit dated
17.03.2012, executed by the late Md. Motleb Hussain, which states that he is working as a
Driver and has two wives, namely the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner, who are both
living with him. He has accordingly prayed in his affidavit that the salary and the pension
benefits should be divided equally between him and his two wives.
9. The affidavit dated 17.03.2012 executed by late Md. Motleb Hussain is reproduced
below:
"BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC KAMRUP (M)::GUWAHATI
AFFIDAVIT
I, Md, Motleb Hussain, son of late Taher Ali, aged about 55 years, resident of Kahilipara, 10 th
APBN, P.S. Dispur in the district of Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as follows:
1. That I am a citizen of India by Birth and permanently residing in the aforesaid
locality.
2. That at present I am working as a D/C Driver constable in B. E.
3. That I have two wife namely Smti Monuwara Begum and Smit Renu Begum
both are living with me.
4. That I hereby declare that I have no any objection if my salary shall be equally
divided between me and with my two wife by the office authorities. And I also confirm
here that my pension benefit which I shall got after my retirement shall be also divided in
three parts between me and with my two wife's.
5. That all the facts given by me in this affidavit, which is submitted before the concern
authority is, true and correct and nothing concealed herein.
Page No.# 5/6
6. That this document will be submitted before the concern authority as a piece of
documentary evidence.
That all the statements made herein before in paragraph 1 to 6 are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing is concealed.
"Oath"
That I swear that this declaration is true, that it conceals nothing and that no part of it is
false, so help me God,
And I sign this affidavit on this the 17th day of March 2012 at Guwahati."
10. If the respondent no. 5 had been divorced in the year 1998, there was no reason
for the Late Md. Motleb Hussain to execute an affidavit in the year 2012, stating on Oath that
the respondent no. 5 was his wife and was living with him. Thus, it appears that the
talaqnama seems to be a fabricated document. In the alternative, the affidavit would have to
be a fabricated document. The petitioner in her affidavit has stated that paragraphs 3 & 4 of
the writ petition, which pertain to Annexure-II & III, being matters of record, are true to the
best of her information, derived therefrom, which the petitioner believes to be true.
11. The contradictory stand taken by the petitioner in her writ petition gives rise to a
suspicion that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and has fabricated
documents, besides not being truthful. However, as there are disputed questions of fact, this
Court is of the view that the Civil Court is the appropriate Forum to decide the said issue
with regard to whether the petitioner can be said to be the second wife of the late Md.
Motleb Hussain and as to whether the respondent no.5 was divorced by her husband. It
should also be noted that the respondent no. 5 is recorded as the wife of late Md. Motleb
Hussain in the service book who had retired on 30.07.2016 and who had expired on
11.02.2018. It is surprising that the Late Md. Motleb Hussain did not change the name of his
wife in his Service Book, even though on considering the alleged talaqnama dated 01.08.1998
Page No.# 6/6
(Annexure-II), late Md. Motleb Hussain had around 20 years to change the name of his wife
in the Service Book, prior to his death.
12. The above being said, this writ petition stands dismissed with liberty being given to
the petitioner to approach the Civil Court with regard to her grievance.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
