Sudamia Devi vs Urmila Devi @ Dhano Devi Wife Of Late ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1429 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sudamia Devi vs Urmila Devi @ Dhano Devi Wife Of Late ... on 8 January, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       S.A. No. 192 of 2019

   Sudamia Devi, aged about 59 years, wife of late Chhotelal Das,
   resident of Zero seem, Tetulmari Colliery, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Tetulmari,
   District Dhanbad                 ...      ...    /Defendant/Appellant
                             Versus
  1. Urmila Devi @ Dhano Devi wife of late Chhotelal Das
  2. Sanjay Kumar son of late Chhotelal Das
  3. Dhananjay Kumar son of late Chhotelal Das,
     All are permanent resident of Village Kansula, Beldar Bigha, P.O.
     Ratnni Bazar, P.S. Sakurabad, Dist. Jehanabad, State Bihar, All are
     presently at near Bank of India, Tetulmari Branch, P.O. Sijua
     (Chandore) P.S. Tetulmari, District Dhanbad
                                           ...    Plaintiff/Respondents
  4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director , M/s. Bharat Coking Coal
   Limited, Dhanbad having office at P.O. + P.S. Koyala Nagar, District
   Dhanbad
  5. The Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery, Sijua Area No. V, M/s
   Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. + P.S. Sijua, District Dhanbad
  6. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch
   Katrasgarh, P.O. + P.S. + Dist. Dhanbad
  7. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch
   Katrasgarh, P.O. + P.S., Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad
                                    ...      Defendants/Respondents
                               With
                        M.A. No. 361 of 2014

   Urmila Devi @ Dhano Devi, widow of Late Chotelal Das, R/o
   Kansoba, Beldarbigha, P.O. Ratnibazar, P.S. Kurtha, Dist. Jahanabad,
   Bihar, at present Tetulmari Colliery, Zero Sim, Post. Sijua, P.S.
   Tetulmari, Dist. Dhanbad               ...     Appellant/Intervenors
                            Versus
1. Smt. Sudamia Devi, widow of Late Chotelal Das, R/o Kansoba,
   Beldarbigha, P.O. Ratnibazar, P.S. Kurtha, Via-Sakurabad, Dist.
   Jahanabad, Bihar at present Tetulmari Colliery, Zero Sim, Post- Sijua,
   P.S. Tetulmari, Dist. Dhanbad
2. Rakesh Kumar
3. Rahul Kumar
   No. 2 and 3, minor sons of late Chotelal Das, appearing through their
   natural guardian and mother No. 1, R/o Kansoba, Beldarbigha, P.O.
   Ratnibazar, P.S. Kurtha, Via- Sakurabad, Dist. Jahanabad at present
   Tetulmari Colliery, Zero Sim, Post Sijua, P.S. Tetulmari, Dist.
   Dhanbad             ...             ...      Respondents/applicants
4. Rina Devi, W/o Sri Anil Nishad, D/o Late Chotelal Das R/o Bhati
   Sadiquepur, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.O. and P.S. Gulzarbag, District Patna,
   Bihar
5. Sanjay Kumar
6. Dhananjay Kewat
                    Both sons of Late Chotelal Das, R/o Kansoba, Beldarbigha, P.O.
                   Ratnibazar, P.S. Kurtha, Dist. Jahanabad, Bihar
                                             ...      ...    Respondents/Opp. Parties
                7. General Public of Tetulmari Colliery, Zero Sim, Post Sijua, P.S.
                   Tetulmari, Dist. Dhanbad
                8. General Public of Kansoba, Beldarbigha, P.O. Ratnibazar, P.S.
                   Kurtha, Via-Sakurabad, Dist. Jahanabad, Bihar
                                             ...      ..   Respondents/Opp. Parties

                                  ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate (In S.A. No. 192 of 2019) Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate (In M.A. No. 361 of 2014) For the Resp. (1-4) : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate Mr. Saurav Mahto, Advocate (In M.A. No. 361 of 2014) For the Resp. (1,2,3) Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate (In S.A. No. 192 of 2019)

---

08/08.01.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Navneet Toppo has joined the proceeding online.

3. Second Appeal No. 192 of 2019

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was defendant no. 1 before the learned Trial Court and is only concerned with issue no. 8 and 9 as framed by the learned Trial Court with regard to grant of permanent injunction, whereby the defendant no. 1 has been restrained from receiving any death benefits amount of service of Late Chhote Lal Das and defendant nos. 2,3,4 and 5 have been restrained from making any payment to defendant no.

1. He has submitted that not only the issue no. 8 has been decided by the court but there is also a direction given by the learned Trial Court that plaintiff no. 1 would be entitled to receive death benefit of her husband to her share along with plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 excluding the share of other children of late Chhote Lal Das borne out of the second marriage with defendant no. 1. The learned counsel submits that the learned court has decided the issue no. 7 against the plaintiff and has

refused to grant the decree declaring that she was the legally married wife of late Chhote Lal Das on the ground that the family court has exclusive jurisdiction to give such a declaration and the learned court had no jurisdiction over such issue and no order could be passed to this effect. The issue no. 7 was decided against the plaintiff in the aforesaid terms.

5. The learned counsel submits that the appellate court has also affirmed the decision with regard to issue no. 8 and 9 and has a substantial question of law arising in the present case in view of the fact that the learned court ought to have earmarked the share of the wife and ought to have issued only a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 subject to decision by the competent court regarding as to who is the legally wife of Chhote Lal Das. He has submitted that so far as the share allocated and directed to be disbursed to the children are concerned the appellant has no objection.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the impugned judgments, this court is of the considered view that the present second appeal is to be heard on the following substantial question of law:-

(i) Whether the learned courts while holding that the court did not have the jurisdiction to declare the marital status of the plaintiff/defendant no. 1 with respect to marriage with Chhote Lal Das were justified in passing permanent injunction against the defendant no. 1 and directing the defendant nos. 2 to 5 to disburse the amount to the plaintiffs and the children of defendant no. 1 or the learned court ought to have granted only temporary injunction subject to any adjudication by the Family Court as and when the concerned parties would have approached the Family Court for declaration of their marital status?"

7. Respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 have already appeared and counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 are present in this court.

8. Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and undertakes to file vakalatnama.

9. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 and undertakes to file vakalatnama .

10. Counsel for the appellant is directed to serve two copies of the entire records of this case to the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Mehta and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra by 13.01.2025.

11. Let the records of this case be called for from the concerned court.