Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH : AIZAWL
NELSON SAILO, J.
Lalhnemi R/o Rulchawm, Aizawl – Appellant
Versus
Lalrinzuali Keifang Melveng, Mizoram – Respondent
RSA No. 2 of 2016
Decided on : 28-10-2022
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Order, VIII – Rule, 3 – Second appeal – Central Civil Service Rules, 1972 – Rule 54(19) – Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 – Section 17 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rule,1944 – Section 4(1) – provides for a second appeal to High Court from an appellate decree – Temporary Government servant with less than ten years' service who retires on superannuation – This is a second appeal filed by appellant under Section of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section of Mizoram Civil Courts Act against Judgment & Order passed by learned – Held, Thus, upon over all consideration of matter in its entirety, Court find merit in appeal and accordingly, impugned Judgment & Order passed by District & Sessions Judge, in RFA is hereby set aside and Judgment & Order passed by Trial Court in Heir ship Certificate is upheld but in light of observations and findings arrived at by this Court, as mentioned in preceding paragraphs – Accordingly disposed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. K. Laldinliana. Also heard Mr. L.H Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli.
2. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 against the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in RFA No. 28/2014. By the impugned Judgment & Order, the first Appellate Court had set aside the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Aizawl in Heirship Certificate Case No. 71/2009. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the appeal may be noticed at the outset.
3. One Shri. Rokamlova @ Rokama, who was working as a Peon in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl got married to Lalnunziri and out of their marriage, four children were born including a daughter namely Melody Rosangzuali. Due to adultery committed by Lalnunziri, Rokamlova and Lalnunziri were divorced. Rokamlova then married Lalnunziri, i.e., the appellant, by way of Mizo Christian Custom on 15.10.1990 and their marriage subsisted till the death of Rokamlova on 02.06.2009. Out of their marriage, a son name Rosangliana was born to them on 28.11.1992. Shri. Rokamlova, according to the respondent No. 1, married her by giving the bride’s price to her father as per the Mizo Christian Custom and a son name Malsawmzuala was born to them on 05.05.2009. Shri. Rokamlova then expired on 02.06.2009.
4. The daughter of late Rokamlova with his first wife Lalnunziri namely, Melody Rosangzuali submitted an application for Heirship Certificate before the Magistrate First Class, District Council Court, Aizawl in respect of the service benefits of his late father as per the family agreement annexed to the Heirship Certificate application. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, Addl. Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl granted Heirship Certificate Case No. 71/2009 whereby, it was provided that Lalrinzuali, the third wife of Rokamlova would get the family pension and Melody Rosangzuali, daughter of late Rokamlova would get DCRG, SGEGIS and leave salary, etc.
5. The appellant upon coming to learn about the Heirship Certificate filed Review Case No. 10/2010 before the Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl praying for cancellation of Heirship Certificate, insofar as, it declared the respondent No. 1 to be the legal heir of Rokamlova in respect of family pension. The review case was contested by the respondent by filing written objection and also counter claim against the proforma respondent. The proforma respondent had also submitted a written objection explaining that the service benefits like DCRG, SEGIS and leave salary had been distributed amongst all the children of late Rokamlova. The proforma respondent had also submitted a written statement against the counter claim made by the respondent against her. The Sub-District Council Court vide Judgment & Order dated 26.04.2011 dismissed the review petition and being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Revision Petition i.e. CRP No. 4/2011 before this Court. The same was disposed of vide Order dated 13.02.2011 by remanding the matter back to the learned Civil Judge-I, Aizawl for fresh decision in respect of the issuance of Heirship Certificate of late Rokamlova by confining the exercise only to the issue of family pension. The Heirship Certificate dated 26.06.2011 and the order passed in the review petition were accordingly set aside.
6. On remand, the parties except the proforma respondent No. 2 appeared before the Trial Court. The respondent No. 1 submitted her application for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of the family pension by annexing documents, such as the list of names of persons, who had a share in the bride’s price (maneitute list), birth certificate of Malsawmzuala, Death Certificate of Rokamlova, f
Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certific....
A putative second wife, whose marriage to the deceased is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Rules.
Point of Law : In the absence of any sanction in law, such action by a public authority like APDCL cannot be accepted to be legally valid.
Pension Benefits of - Legal heirs - Even if a Government servant has contracted a second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage, the children born out of such a second marriage would still....
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
The court ruled that the appellant failed to prove her marriage under customary law, while the respondent's marriage was valid, leading to the declaration of the respondent as the legal wife entitled....
Important Point : A marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is void, and nomination for benefits does not grant legal heir status to the nominee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
