Uttarakhand High Court
AO/132/2018 on 5 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 132 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Smt. Asha Verma. ...Appellant
(By Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate)
AND:
Public at large & others. ...Respondents
(By Tapan Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal under Section 384 of Indian
Succession Act, 1925 has been filed challenging the
order dated 21.03.2018 passed by learned Ist Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar. By the said
order, appellant's application filed under Section 372 of
Indian Succession Act, 1925 was rejected on the
ground that appellant could not establish factum of her
marriage with the deceased, namely, late Rajkumar.
3. In her application under Section 372,
appellant had asserted that she is widow of Rajkumar,
S/o Nikhi Ram, who died on 21.05.2011 and at the
time of death, deceased was residing with her at House
No. S-6, Shivlok Colony, Ranipur, District-Haridwar. It
was further stated in the application that deceased had
divorced his first wife Smt. Maju Rani through a divorce
decree dated 04.02.2002 passed by the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division Roorkee. In her application,
appellant had staked claim for the monetory dues of
the deceased e.g. G.P.F., Leave Encashment, Gratuity,
Insurance etc., amounting to `11,82,745/-, as he was
serving as Registrar Kanoongo in State Revenue
Department at the time of his death.
4. Deceased was earlier married to Manju Rani
and had two sons out of said wedlock. Those two sons
filed objection to the application made by the
appellant, stating that deceased was residing at House
No. 673/3, Sainik Colony, Roorkee, District Haridwar
with their mother, Smt. Manju Rani. It was further
stated that applicant (appellant herein) is neither
widow nor successor of the deceased and the objectors
are the rightful heirs of the deceased. They further
stated that decree of divorce was obtained ex-parte
against their mother without her knowledge, but, the
deceased continued to reside with their mother
Smt. Manju Rani, till his death and last rites of the
deceased were also performed by them and their
mother. It was further stated that applicant has based
her claim on a forged Marriage Certificate dated
15.01.2002 issued by Rajpoot Marriage Bureau; while,
fact of the matter is that applicant was never married
to the deceased. Reference was also made to reply
dated 14.11.2005 given by deceased, to a notice
issued by the applicant/appellant, wherein, deceased
had denied the assertion of applicant that she was his
wife.
5. Learned Civil Judge rejected the application
filed by the appellant by a detailed order. Learned Civil
Judge was justified in rejecting appellant's application
for Succession Certificate, as except bald statement
that she had married the deceased, no evidence could
be produced by her to prove that she was his wife.
Basis of her claim was a marriage certificate issued by
a private marriage bureau, however, testimony of the
person, who issued that certificate was also not
produced. Moreover, not a single photograph was
produced by applicant/appellant in support of her
assertion that her marriage was solemnized with the
deceased. The marriage certificate produced by her
was also without photograph.
6. Learned Court below was justified in
observing that Marriage Certificate issued by a private
marriage bureau, in the absence of certificate of
registration of marriage before the Competent
Authority, is not sufficient to prove factum of marriage.
Even in the documents produced by applicant/appellant
in support of her claim, name of her husband was
mentioned as Anil Kumar Verma; while, name of the
deceased is Rajkumar.
7. It is admitted position that appellant was
earlier married to someone else. Learned counsel for
the appellant contends that after getting divorce from
her previous husband, she got married with the
deceased. This fact, however, is disputed by Mr.
Tapan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 2 & 3, who submits that on the date of marriage
indicated in the Marriage Certificate issued by marriage
bureau, appellant was in marital relationship with her
previous husband and she got divorced subsequently.
8. From perusal of the material on record it is
apparent that appellant has not been able to establish
that she was the wife of the deceased. Factum of
marriage with the deceased also could not be proved
by her. Documents produced by her also could not
support her contention.
9. In such view of the matter, learned Civil
Judge was justified in rejecting her application. Thus,
there is no scope of interference with the impugned
order.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
