Rajasthan High Court
Smt Rekha Yadav vs Smt Angoori Devi on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 616/2018
Smt Rekha Yadav W/o Shri Ashok Yadav
----Appellant
Versus
Smt Angoori Devi & Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
Mr. Ganesh Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
31/03/2022
In this first appeal, the judgment and decree dated
23.05.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.15, Jaipur
Metropolitan in Suit No.20/2013, is under challenge whereby the
civil suit filed by appellant-plaintiff and counter claim filed by
respondent-defendant No.1 have been decreed in following
manner:-
vr% okfnuh js[kk ;kno }kjk izLrqr okn ckcr ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk
fo:) izfroknhx.k Jherh vaxwjh nsoh o vU; vkaf'kd :i Lohdkj fd;k tkdj rFkk
izfroknh la- 01 Jherh vaxwjh nsoh ds }kjk izLrqr dkmUVj Dyse varxZr vkns'k 8
fu;e 6, vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj] fuEukuqlkj fMØh ikfjr dh tkrh gS
%&
1- okfnuh js[kk ;kno vius ifr Lo- v'kksd ;kno dh e`R;q ds mijkUr fof/kd
iRuh gksus ds ukrs lh-lh-,l- ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1972 ds rgr izkIr gksus okyh Qsfeyh
isU'ku jkf'k [email protected]& :i;s izfrekg o vodk'k udnhdj.k dk Hkqxrku :i;s
(2 of 4) [CFA-616/2018]
[email protected]& ,oa L-o- v'kksd ;kno dh e`R;q mijkUr izfroknh ua- 3 yxk;r 05 ds }kjk
okfnuh dks iznRr vafre laLdkj isVs nh xbZ jkf'k [email protected]& :i;s o rRdky jkf'k
10][email protected]& :i;s izkIr djus dk ,dek= vf/kdkfj.kh gSA
2- Lo- v'kksd ;kno ds fu;ksDrk izfroknh ua- 3 yxk;r 5 ds }kjk iznRr Lo-
v'kksd ;kno dh iRuh ¼okfnuh½ dks izfrekg 18][email protected]& :i;s jkf'k mldh e`R;q
vFkok iqufoZokg fd, tkus rd crkSj isa'ku rFkk okfnuh ds iqufoZokg dj fy, tkus
ds ckotwn Hkh okfnuh e`R;q i;ZUr 5][email protected]& :i;s izfrekg izkIr djus dh ,d ek=
vf/kdkfj.kh gSA
3- okfnuh dks izkIr thou chek ikWfylh ds rgr 11]00][email protected]& :i;s esa okfnuh
o izfroknh la- ,d [email protected]&[email protected] fgLlk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gSA
4- Lo- v'kksd ;kno dh e`R;q mijkUr muds fu;ksDrk izfroknh ua- 03 yxk;r 05
ls izkIr gksus okys ykHk] ifjykHk vkfn ds vfrfjDr Hkkjr la?k] mM+hlk jkT; o
jktLFkku jkT; ls ?kksf"kr uhfr ds vuqlj.k esa Hkfo"; esa izkIr gksus okys dbZ ykHk]
ifjykHk o lgk;rk bR;kfn ,oa xzsP;wVh jkf'k o vU; fjVk;jesaV csfufQV~l esa
okfnuh ,oa izfroknh la[;k ,d [email protected]&[email protected] fgLlk izkIr dh vf/kdkfj.kh gSA
5- lhthbZthvkbZ,l] Mhlhvkjth ,oa lhek izgjh chek ;kstuk ls feyus okys ykHk
esa okfnuh o izfroknh la[;k ,d [email protected]&[email protected] fgLlk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gSA
6- i{kdkjku~ okn [kpkZ viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA
7- mijksDrkuqlkj fMØh ipkZ eqfrZc fd;k tkosA
It is not in dispute that one Sh. Ashok Yadav was in service
in BSF and died during his service. Appellant-Plaintiff happens to
be his wife and respondent-defendant No.1 happens to be his
mother. Both are natural heirs of Class-I as per schedule
appended with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In such factual
(3 of 4) [CFA-616/2018]
and legal matrix, the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court seems to be just and proper.
However, respondent-defendant has filed an application
under Section 151 CPC dated 25.02.2020 claiming inter alia that
after passing of impugned judgment dated 23.05.2018, plaintiff
has entered into re-marriage with one Dr.Arvind Yadav on
08.11.2019. The marriage card and few photographs showing
marriage ceremony have been produced on record.
Counsel for appellant-plaintiff on instructions of her client,
fairly admits the factum of re-marriage. Thus, the fact that
appellant-plaintiff has entered into re-marriage is taken on record.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
Whether after entering into re-marriage, rights of appellant
to claim benefits of her deceased husband adversely affects and
whether the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2018 requires any
modification, this appeal is admitted for hearing.
Respective counsel for respondents have put in appearance,
hence, service stands complete.
Heard counsel for both parties on the stay application.
Perusal of the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2018 go to
show that the family pension of deceased employee has been
ordered to be granted to the appellant and the claim of family
pension has also been assessed, in case she enters into re-
marriage. There is no cross-appeal or cross-objection by
respondents against the grant of relief of pension to the appellant.
(4 of 4) [CFA-616/2018]
Hence, there is no reason to stay the relief to the extent of grant
of pension to the appellant.
As far as, the amount of LIC policy of deceased Ashok Yadav
is concerned, the same has already been ordered to be divided in
1/2-1/2 share between the appellant and respondent No.1. Both
are entitled to receive/recover the amount of LIC policy
accordingly.
As far as, other retiral benefits, gratuity and emoluments of
the CGEGIS, BSRG Insurance schemes are concerned, the
appellant and respondent No.1 have been held entitled to receive
1/2-1/2 share of such benefits. It is expected from the
respondents Nos.3 to 5 to ensure the payment/released of retiral
benefits, gratuity and other emoluments to appellant-plaintiff and
respondent-defendant No.1 in equal 1/2-1/2 share as directed by
the trial Court in the impugned judgment. Thus, directions issued
by the trial court in the impugned judgment be implemented in
letter and spirit, and both parties may receive/recover their
respective share as granted to them in the impugned judgment.
With such observations, the stay application stands disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Sachin /22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
