IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the marriage between the parties could not have been dissolved merely on the basis of a compromise allegedly entered into between the parties. The court emphasized the requirement of a decree by a competent court for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 11483 of 2023 whereby the writ petition itself has been dismissed.

3. Facts of the case as have been noticed by learned Single Judge are that one Bhojraj Singh was an assistant teacher in Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri. He superannuated on 30.06.2012 and later died on 02.10.2021. The petitioner/appellant came up with a case of payment of family pension on the ground that she has contracted marriage with late Bhojraj Singh and has been residing as such for the last several years. In order to put-forth its case, the petitioner-appellant contended that though Bhojraj Singh had initially contracted marriage with contesting private respondent Usha Devi but the marriage ultimately did not succeed and the marital parties parted ways. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been initiated by Usha Devi in which a compromise was arrived at, as per which, the parties had separated. It was therefore urged that once Usha Devi parted ways with the deceased employee no right survived in her as against the deceased employee. The deceased employee contracted marriage with the present petitioner-appellant. Various documents have been relied upon in order to prove the factum of marriage. It also appears that in proceeding before the authorities, the petitioner-appellant also set up a claim of second marriage of Usha Devi which fact is specifically disputed by the private respondent. The appellant also claim to have obtained succession certificate and relying upon it claim for family pension was put-forth by the appellant which has been rejected by the authorities. The writ petition filed against such order has also been dismissed.

4. Learned Single Judge has returned a finding to the effect that the marriage legally contracted between Bhojraj Singh and Usha Devi could not have been dissolved except by a decree of competent court and merely in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. such marriage cannot be annulled. The claim of the appellant based on second marriage has therefore been rejected.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge, the appellant who is admittedly the later wife has filed the present appeal. On the previous occasion when the matter was heard, this Court had called upon the appellant to demonstrate as to whether a legally contracted marriage could be dissolved except by a decree of divorce passed by the competent forum. Order passed in that regard on 05.02.2024 reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment as he intends to further examine the law with regard to the impact of compromise between the parties and to what extent such compromise would provide an alternative to a decree of divorce otherwise contemplated under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by which alone a marriage can otherwise be dissolved.

List again as fresh on 19.2.2024."

6. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellate has vehemently urged that in the facts of the present case the claim of the appellant is clearly sustainable inasmuch as the previous marriage itself was dissolved by way of a compromise entered into between the parties in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the contesting opposite party has otherwise solemnized subsequent marriage, and therefore, the claim of family pension by the private respondent would be unsustainable. In order to support his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deoki Panjhiyara Vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad & another, reported in 2012 0 Supreme (SC) 899. Reliance is placed upon paragraphs 18 & 19 of the said judgment which are reproduce