JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. None appears for and on behalf of respondent No. 7.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband/Late Parbananda Kalita retired as Vehicle Driver working under Barpeta Road Electrical Sub-Division under Barpeta Electrical Division and thereafter, expired on 2.7.2016, in his residence. According to the petitioner, she is the legally married wife of Late Parbananda Kalita with whom the petitioner solemnized social marriage in the year 1983, i.e., about 33 years back and out of their wedlock, three daughters were born to them but because of differences between them in their relation, since 1993, they started living separately. The petitioner started living in her paternal home along with her youngest daughter since 1993 and the other two daughters of the petitioner stayed along with their father, i.e., Late Parbananda Kalita.

3. Further, it is submitted that after living separately from the house of her husband, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Court of CJM, Pathshala at Barpeta, bearing Case No. MR No. 8/1997, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance for the petitioner and her youngest daughter, wherein the late husband of the petitioner appeared before the Hon'ble Court and given his deposition before the Court on 02.04.1998, clearly admitting the petitioner as his wife and about three daughters and the eldest daughter Mousumi Kalita is stated to be 14 years, and that the marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 16.10.1983. In his deposition before the Hon'ble Court, the late husband of the petitioner nowhere stated about second marriage with respondent No. 7, which itself reflects that the petitioner is the first legal wife. The petitioner is known to the whole family as well as the locality as the first wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. Further, it is contended that by order dated 26.05.1998, the Court granted maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her youngest daughter by declaring the petitioner to be a legitimate wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. Moreover, Late Parbananda Kalita was issued the family identity card by the Government of Assam, Food and Civil Supplies Department in which the names of all the family members of the petitioner are present till the year 2012.

4. The petitioner submits that though the relation between the petitioner and her late husband was not in good terms but the relation between the daughters of the petitioner with their father was cordial for which the husband of the petitioner used to visit the petitioner and their youngest daughter sometimes and the petitioner along with her youngest daughter too used to visit the other two daughters along with the petitioner sometimes. After the death of the petitioner's husband, i.e., Late Parbananda Kalita, the petitioner came to know from different sources that the respondent No. 7 claimed herself to be the first wife of the petitioner's husband. When the petitioner applied for family pension of her late husband, she came to know from the office of the respondent authorities that already another application claiming similar benefits was filed by respondent No. 7 and then, the petitioner informed the authorities about her status and that she is the only legitimate wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. Thereafter, a letter dated 18.01.2017 was issued from the office of the respondent No. 3, bearing letter No. AGM/BPED/APDCL/LAR/A-53(II)/2017/89, informing the petitioner along with the respondent No. 7, to submit the valid/lawful documents of marriage in support of their claim of being the first wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. However, the petitioner could not receive the first letter issued by the respondents within time and only after receiving the 2nd letter from the office of the respondent authorities, dated 20.03.2017, the petitioner replied ab