Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Prinsu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 27306 of 2018
(SMT PRINSU YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 25-03-2022
Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vijendra Singh Choudhary, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Copy of decree of divorce filed today by Shri Devendra Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner vide Interlocutory Application
No.6409/2022 is taken on record.
Petitioner Smt.Prinsu Yadav has filed this writ petition being
aggrieved of the order dated 2.11.2018 passed by the Additional
Commissioner Shahdol, Division Shahdol in Case No.300/Appeal/2017-
2018 (Smt.Munni Singh versus Smt.Prinsu Yadav & Another) allowing
the appeal of Smt.Munni Singh & setting aside the order of appointment of
the present petitioner on the post of Aganwadi Sahayika for Village
Sonvarsha, Gram Panchayat Chhata, Development Block Sohagpur,
District Shahdol.
Petitioner's contention is that the sole ground on which learned
Additional Commissioner has set aside the order of the Collector, District
Shahdol dated 13.4.2018 is that appellant Smt.Munni Singh canvassed that
the present petitioner had produced voter list of Village Sonvarsha. The
petitioner was married to one Shri Gendlal, Resident of Changera, Post
Birhuli, Police Station Budhar, District Shahdol twelve years prior to the
inviting applications for filling up of the post of Aganwadi Sahayika.
Smt.Munni Singh had taken a ground that after marriage, the place of
residence of the present petitioner changed & she is no more resident of
Village Sonvarsha. Smt. Munni Singh alleged that despite change of her
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
residence, the present petitioner, who was the respondent No.1 before the
Digitally signed by
AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.03.28
17:13:36 IST
Additional Commissioner had filed an application for appointment on the
basis of residence of her father Shri Somnath Yadav. She further averred
that the petitioner had shown herself to be deserted woman whereas in the
Ration Card, there is mention of name of her two children & in the Adhar
Card, there is mention of name of her husband, namely, Shri Gendlal, who
is not in the voter list of Village Sonvarsha, therefore, the Collector erred
in setting aside the selection of appellant Smt.Munni Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Additional Commissioner did not consider a fact that the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Shahdol in Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No.481/2011 vide order dated 20.2.2014 accepted the contention of the
present petitioner that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home three
days prior to the Deepawali of the year 2010 alongwith her two daughters
as a result of which the application for maintenance was allowed & the
Competent Court had directed that her husband Shri Gendlal shall pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of Smt.Prinsu
Yadav and Rs.800/- each in favour of the daughters. Thereafter, the
petitioner had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion &
cruelty. Vide order dated 22.11.2019, the said application was allowed &
the judgment was delivered by the learned Additional District Judge
Budhar, District Shahdol in R.C.S.H.M No.4/2019. The order of
maintenance dated 20.2.2014 in which the address of the present petitioner
& her daughters shown as R/o. Village Hadai Sonvarsha was placed before
the learned Additional Commissioner as a proof of the petitioner being a
deserted woman but that was not considered by the learned Additional
Commissioner & arbitarily the appeal has been allowed.
Nobody is appearing for the private respodnents to oppose the prayer
though name of Shri K.K.Kushwaha reflects in the cause list as learned
counsel for the respondent No.6.
After perusing the impugned order & the order of maintenance
wherein the learned Family Court specifically accepted the contention that
the petitioner is a deserted woman & awarded maintenance in favour of
the petitioner way back in the year 2014, there was no justification in
doubting such documentary evidence & not accepting the petitioner to be a
deserted woman.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State admits that in case of
a deserted or divorced woman, the address of father of the deserted or
divorced woman will be taken as her home & even in the order dated
20.2.2014, the address of Village Sonvarsha is mentioned, which proves
the bonafide of the petitioner.
In my opinion, the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in
overlooking the vital documentary evidence & has passed the impugned
order on the basis of conjectures & surmises. The learned Additional
Commissioner has also erred in not accepting the residence of the father of
the petitioner to be the residence of the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds & is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 2.11.2018 passed by the Additional
Commissioner Shahdol, Division Shahdol in Case No.300/Appeal/2017-
2018 (Smt.Munni Singh versus Smt.Prinsu Yadav & Another) deserves to
& is hereby set aside. It is held that the petitioner being a deserted woman
as accepted by the learned Family Court was entitled to apply for the post
of Aganwadi Sahayika on the strength of the name of her father in the
voter list of Village Sonvarsha & there is no illegality in such claim put
forth by the petitioner.
In above terms, this writ petition stands allowed & disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
