LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Sunday, May 5, 2019

second wife- Shaini Devi has no right to the receive monetory benefits on the basis of such void marriage. = we are of the opinion that during the subsistence of the first marriage, second marriage is void and the second wife- Shaini Devi has no right to the receive monetory benefits on the basis of such void marriage. The plaintiff- appellant herein as well as defendant No.9-Pinki are entitled to the service/retiral benefits of the deceased.

1
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         CIVIL APPEAL NO.4263/2019
      [@ SLP [C] NO.13045/2018]
PHOOLMA DEVI                                  Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
BIKRAM SINGH & ORS.                           Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The   appeal   arises   out   of   the   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
in RSA No.4171 of 2015 dated 11.01.2018.
Brief   facts   of   the   case   are   that   deceased-Parveen
Singh   had   joined   the   service   of   Punjab   State   Electricity
Board   as   a   Khalasi   at   Bhatinda,   Punjab   on   18.10.1972   and
his services were regularized on 18.04.1975.
In   the   year   1974,   the   appellant-Phoolma   Devi   got
married to Parveen Singh and resided at the native village
of   her   husband   at   Khand,   Tehri   Garhwal,   Uttarakhand.     On
07.05.1981, a daughter Pinki was born to her. 
On   25.05.2009,   Parveen   Singh   died   while   he   was   on
duty   and   working   at   Ropar,   Punjab.     After   his   death,   the
appellant   came   to   know   that   her   husband,   during   the
subsistence   of   their   marriage   had   contracted   another

2
marriage  with  respondent  No.2-Shaini  Devi  who  was  residing
with   him   in   the   allotted   Government   quarter   in   Ropar,
Punjab. 
The   appellant   sent   a   representation   to   the   Punjab
State   Electricity   Board,   Chief   Engineer,   GGSSTP,   Ropar
claiming payment of death and retiral benefits to her.
When   no   steps   were   taken,   being   aggrieved   from   the
inaction   of   the   concerned   authorities   for   disbursing   the
payment   of   death   claim   and   all   retiral   benefits,   the
appellant   filed   a   Civil   Suit   No.RT-RT-52   of   18.02.2010   in
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rupnagar, Punjab
seeking   declaration   to   the   effect   that   the   appellant   and
proforma   respondent   No.8   herein-defendant   No.9   being   legal
heirs   and   entitled   to   receive   all   the   monetary   benefits
accrued   due   to   death   of   Parveen   Singh   to   the   extent   of   �
share   and   further   praying   for   the   relief   of   mandatory
injunction   directing   the   respondent   No.4   to   7   to   pay   all
the service benefits to the appellant and respondent No.8.
The   trial   Court   vide   order   and   judgment   dated
28.11.2013   passed   in   Civil   Suit   No.RT-RT-52   allowed   the
prayer   made   by   the   appellant   and   concluded   that   the
appellant was the first wife of Parveen Singh and Pinki was
their   daughter   and   thus   they   were   entitled   to   receive   the
monetary benefits.
The decision of the trial Court was challenged before
the Additional District Judge.  Vide order dated 28.11.2014
in   Civil   Appeal   No.8/4.1.2014   the   appeal   filed   by

3
respondent No.1 to 3 herein was dismissed and the order of
the trial Court was upheld.
In   appeal,   the   High   Court   vide   judgment   and   order
dated   11.01.2018   in   RSA   No.4171   of   2015   disposed   of   the
appeal of respondent NO.1 to 3.  Hence the appeal.
Admittedly,   Phoolma   Devi   is   the   first   legally   wedded
wife of the deceased Parveen Singh.   The plaintiff filed a
suit   for   seeking   declaration   to   the   effect   that   she   and
defendant No.9-Pinki, her daughter, are entitled to receive
all   the   monetory   benefits   accrued   on   the   death   of   Parveen
Singh from defendant Nos.2 to 5. Defendant No.6-Shaini Devi
claimed   marriage   with   the   deceased   employee   during   the
survival of the first marriage with the plaintiff-appellant
Phoolma   Devi.     The   marriage   of   the   deceased   employee   with
Phoolma Devi had not been dissolved.
By   virtue   of   the   fact   that   in   certain   nomination
papers,   the   name   of   Shaini   Devi   was   mentioned,   dispute
arose   with   respect   to   the   dues   payable   by   defendant   Nos.2
to   5   i.e.   Punjab   State   Electricity   Board   and   others   where
the deceased was in employment.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are
of   the   opinion   that   during   the   subsistence   of   the   first
marriage,   second   marriage   is   void   and   the   second   wife-
Shaini   Devi   has   no   right   to   the   receive   monetory   benefits
on   the   basis   of   such   void   marriage.     The   plaintiff-
appellant   herein   as   well   as   defendant   No.9-Pinki   are
entitled to the service/retiral benefits of the deceased.

4
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
However,   this   determination   would   not   affect   any
other property dispute, if any, between the parties.
��������.J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
��������.J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2019.

5
ITEM NO.12               COURT NO.4               SECTION IV
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13045/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2018
in RSA No.4171/2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh)
PHOOLMA DEVI                                       Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
BIKRAM SINGH & ORS.                                Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.72793/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. )

Date : 24-04-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Hussain Syed Mehdi, Adv.
Mr. R.S. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Shukla, AOR
Mr. Rushi Khan, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s)  Ms. Zehra Khan, Adv.
                    Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR
                 
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL)                                (JAGDISH CHANDER)
  COURT MASTER                                   BRANCH OFFICER
[signed order is placed on the file]