A second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage is void, and nomination does not confer legal heir status.

JUDGMENT :

Milind Narendra Jadhav, J.

1. This Revision Application is filed by the Applicant who is the second wife of the deceased Mr. Gangadhar Hiremath (for short "Gangadhar"). Respondent is the first wife.

2. Respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 426 of 2014 before the Trial Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Solapur for grant of Succession Certificate under provisions of Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short "the said Act") in respect of movable properties of the deceased Gangadhar. The Trial Court allowed the Application and held that Respondent is the sole legal heir and therefore entitled to Succession Certificate.

3. Being aggrieved, Applicant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2022, before the District Court at Solapur to challenge the order of the Trial Court. By the Impugned order dated 07.01.2023 the Appeal is dismissed by the District Court and Judgment dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.

4. Thus there are two concurrent orders of the Courts below which are impugned by the Applicant in the present Revision proceedings.

5. Briefly stated certain relevant facts are required for adjudication of the present dispute between the parties. Deceased Gangadhar was working as a government servant with the State of Maharashtra. In 1983, Gangadhar married the Respondent. Gangadhar and Respondent cohabited for six years and had one son named Subodh, who is partially disabled and presently living with Respondent.

5.1. On 02.02.1989, despite subsistence of the first marriage Gangadhar married the Revision Applicant (2nd wife) and thereafter both of them resided together for 25 years until his demise in 2014. Gangadhar and Revision Applicant (2nd wife) had four children. The daughter is married and sons are presently residing with Revision Applicant. All five children of Gangadhar are major as on today.

5.2. Respondent (1st wife) sought maintenance and alimony from Gangadhar for self and her son in the Court at Solapur. The Court passed order granting maintenance of amount of Rs. 4000/- per month to Respondent (1st wife) which was duly paid by Gangadhar to her every month until his demise on 02.04.2014.

5.3. However, Gangadhar nominated Revision Applicant (2nd wife) and her children as his nominees to claim his terminal benefits and family pension due to which pursuant to his demise, the said benefits were extended to Applicant and her children. I am informed by both Advocates at the bar that there is no dispute of terminal benefits as on date and the only dispute is in respect to receipt of pension by the Revision Applicant (2nd wife) which is subject matter of lis between the two widows of deceased Gangadhar. Respondent claimed family pension and for that she filed CMA.

5.4. On 05.11.2014, Respondent (1st wife) filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 426 of 2014 under Section 372 of the said Act seeking Succession Certificate to movable properties of Gangadhar, including declaration that she is entitled to receive Family pension. The Civil Miscellaneous Application was duly contested by Revision Applicant (2nd wife), unsuccessfully after its trial both parties let oral evidence.

5.5. By the impugned judgment and order dated 15.03.2022 Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 426 of 2014 is allowed declaring Respondent (1st wife) to be sole legal heir of deceased Gangadhar and declaring her to be entitled to receive Family pension.

5.6. Being aggrieved, Revision Applicant (2nd wife) filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2022 before the District Court, Solapur to challenge the judgment and order dated 15.03.2022. By the impugned judgment of the District Court dated 07.01.2023 the decision of Trial Court is upheld and the Regular Civil Appeal is dismissed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

6. On and from 02.04.2014, Revision Applicant (2nd wife) is receiving Family pension. I am informed that pursuant to the judgment of the District Court, Respondent (1st wife) approached the Co