Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 826
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Keshav Kumar Trivedi, J.
Deepak Kumar Chouksey - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent, Office of District Ayurvedic Officer Sagar and others - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 216-2011
Decided On : 08-05-2012
Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 None for the other Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove a valid marriage as per Hindu law and the consequences of a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act - Validity of Marriage - Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage and the consequences of a void marriage under Sections 5 and 11 of the Act. The court also considered the general rules of succession in case of female Hindu under Section 15 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the younger brother of the deceased, filed for a succession certificate to claim the service benefits of the deceased. The respondent claimed a valid marriage with the deceased and was granted the succession certificate. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the marriage was void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to prove a valid marriage as per Hindu law and that the marriage was void ab initio. The court held that the lower courts erred in granting the succession certificate to the respondent and allowed the petitioner's application for the succession certificate.
Issues: Validity of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, grant of succession certificate, and application of the general rules of succession in case of female Hindu under the Indian Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the respondent to prove a valid marriage as per Hindu law and the consequent void ab initio status of the marriage. The court also emphasized the importance of applying the law and appreciating the evidence available on record.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's application for the succession certificate, set aside the lower court's orders, and directed the issuance of a succession certificate in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
This revision is directed against the order dated 31-3-2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 13/2010, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24-11-2010 passed in Succession Case No. 14/2009 by the III Civil Judge, Class-I, Sagar, has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this revision in brief are that one late Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was employed as Staff Nurse in District Ayurved Hospital, Sagar. She died intestate on 26-4-2008. The petitioner being the younger brother of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for grant of succession certificate so as to claim the service benefits of late Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. It was contended in the application that the marriage of Smt.' Pushpa Chouksey was solemnized with one Omkar Rai on 8-2-1981, but the same was not a successful marriage. Said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey was deserted by her husband and she was living with her father and mother. Ultimately a civil suit was filed by Smt. Pushpa Chouksey for grant of divorce against Omkar Rai in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Sagar, being Civil Suit No. 123-A/2000. The said suit was decreed on 21-12-2000. The petitioner was living with said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey and the petitioner was nominated in all the service records of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as the nominee to receive the service benefits of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey. Before even the dissolution of marriage of said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey with Omkar Rai, she started living with respondent No. 2, but no marriage was performed. Said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey died on 26-4-2008 in Medical College, Jabalpur on account of gas leakage and, therefore, he was entitled to grant of succession certificate.
3. The official respondent in the said case filed the reply to the effect that said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey has not nominated anyone in the service records, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was nominated by said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey as her nominee. It was contended that many applications were made by said Smt. Pushpa Chouksey for recording the names of various persons and even in one of the applications, she has said that she wanted to give some share in the said service benefit to her mother. Respondent No. 2 filed a reply to the said application categorically contending that marriage of respondent No. 2 was performed with Smt. Pushpa Chouksey on 15-1-2000 and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 16-4-2001. Said daughter had died on 21-4-2008. It was claimed that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of a succession certificate, since accepting the contention of the respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector, Sagar has already granted a succession certificate in favour of respondent No. 2 and some payments have been made to him. It was claimed that a succession certificate was to be granted in favour of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 supported the claim of the petitioner. Issues were framed by the learned Succession Court and thereafter recording the evidence, rejecting the application of the petitioner, the succession certificate was granted in favour of respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 384 of the Act before the Lower Appellate Court, but since the said appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order, this revision is filed.
4. It is vehemently contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court as also by the Succession Court are bad in law as the material evidence, the proof of marriage produced by respondent No. 2 has wrongly been accepted. It is contended that since undisputedly the parties are Hindu, they are governed by the Hindu Law and the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Succession Act') as also the Hindu Marriage Act, 1055 (hereinafter referred to as 'Marriage Act'), are applicable. It is
