Jharkhand High Court
Munna Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 October, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 427 of 2024
Munna Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o Late nand Kishor Prasad, R/o
village Lakhibaghi, P.O.,P.S. Koderma & District-Koderma.
... ... ... Private Respondent/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Project Building, P.O., P.S.
Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Project
Building, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S.
Hazaribagh & District- Hazaribagh.
5. The Block Education Extension Officer officiating at Chalkusha,
P.O., P.S. Barkatta, & District- Hazaribagh.
6. The Accountant General officiating at A.G. Office, P.O., P.S.,
Doranda & District- Ranchi.
... ... Respondents/ Respondents
7. Sunita Devi, age not known to the appellant, W/o Late Nand Kishor
Prasad, R/o Gandhi High School Road, Mahaveer Gali, Jhumri
Tilaiya, P.O., P.S. Tilaiya & District Koderma.
... ... ... Petitioner/ Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Resp. State: Md. Sahabuddin, SC VII
For the Resp. No. 6: Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 7: Mr. Utkarsh Sinha, Advocate
---------
06/Dated: 23.10.2024
1) This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 30th
April 2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(S) No. 3612 of
2022.
2) The said writ petition has been filed by the respondent no. 7
seeking release of payment of death-cum-retiral benefits and other
benefits of one Nand Kishor Prasad, whose 1st wife is the appellant.
The 7th respondent claimed that she is the 2nd wife of the said person
and he died on 14.02.2022.
3) The claim of the 7th respondent was opposed by the appellant
specifically contending that the second marriage, being null and void
since it occurred during the subsistence of the 1st marriage with the
appellant, the 7th respondent was not entitled to any amount from out
of the death-cum-retiral benefits payable on account of death of Nand
Kishor Prasad.
4) In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge directed
the 4th respondent to hold an inquiry as to whether the name of the 7th
respondent as well as her children finds place in the service excerpts
of the deceased husband and upon proper verification, release entire
benefits in equal shares to the appellant as well as the 7th respondent.
5) Reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge on a
judgment in Rita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand through Chief
Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and others passed in
W.P.(S) No. 96 of 2020.
6) The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the fact that the
name of the 7th respondent was also found in the service excerpts and
also in the list of nominees and the appellant, who is the 1st wife, was
acknowledged to be the legally wedded wife. He also gave a finding in
paragraph no. 12 that during the lifetime of the appellant, without any
judicial separation/divorce or any order by a competent court of civil
jurisdiction as per the Hindu Marriage Act, the second marriage could
not have been solemnized.
7) Having given such a finding, he however went on to hold, in our
opinion, erroneously that if the second wife had continued living with
the deceased husband as a wife, her status cannot be denied.
8) We do not agree with the said view expressed by the learned
Single Judge because if the marriage of the deceased with the 7th
respondent could not have been solemnized, then she cannot be
accorded status of a 'wife' for the purpose of getting a share in the
retirement benefits of the deceased.
9) Since, it is admitted fact that the appellant is the 1st wife, she
would be legitimately entitled to the retirement benefits of the
deceased alone.
10) Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is
set aside and it is declared that the 7th respondent is not entitled to
any share of the death-cum-retiral benefits and other benefits payable
on account of death of the deceased, and appellant alone is entitled to
them. We are, however, not expressing any opinion as to the claim of
the children allegedly born to the 7th respondent, during the lifetime of
the deceased.
11) Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Sharda/MM
