Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, S. Talapatra, JJ.
Shyama Devi (Singh) - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 228 of 2008Decided On : 25-11-2014
PENSIONARY BENEFITS - FAMILY DISPUTE - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, SECTION 16 - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the entitlement to pensionary benefits and retiral benefits of a deceased employee between his two purported wives and their children. The deceased employee had two wives and children from the second wife. The authorities had taken a decision favoring the first wife, leading to a legal challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the children from the void marriage were entitled to inheritance in the property of the deceased employee, including pensionary benefits, as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court also held that the authorities' decision to favor the first wife was unjust and directed the equitable distribution of benefits among the legal heirs.
Issues: The key issues were the validity of the second marriage, entitlement of children from the void marriage to inheritance, and the authority's decision favoring the first wife over the second wife and children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu Succession Act to interpret the rights of children from void marriages and the inheritance of pensionary benefits. The court emphasized the equitable treatment of children regardless of the legality of the marriage.
Final Decision: The court directed the equitable distribution of pensionary benefits among the legal heirs, including the children from the void marriage, and ordered the authorities to pay the due amounts to the respective beneficiaries.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, CJ.1. This is a sad case which exemplifies the totally technical and callous attitude of the authorities while dealing with matters relating to payment of pension and gratuity to the heirs of a deceased employee.
2. The undisputed facts are that Sunil Kumar Singh was working in Tripura State Rifles and at the time of his death in the year 2004 he was holding the post of Naik. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh expired on 26.08.2004. In the service record of Sunil Kumar Singh, the name of his wife and nominee was reflected as Shyama Devi, the present petitioner. However, after the death of Sunil Kumar Singh, Sunita Devi, respondent No. 4 herein also filed a claim that she was the widow of Sunil Kumar Singh and she further alleged that she was the first wife of Sunil Kumar Singh. Thereafter, two separate survival certificates were produced by both Shyama Singh and Sunita Kumari. In the survival certificate produced by Shyama Singh, the legal heirs were shown as Shyama Singh and two minor children Abinash Kumar and Kanupriya, who were born on 19.02.1997 and 04.08.1999 respectively which means that in the year 2004 they were 7 and 5 years old respectively. On the other hand, Sunita Devi produced a survival certificate in which the legal heirs were shown to be Sunita Devi, Shyama Devi, Abinash Kumar and Kanupriya. In the same certificate Shyama Devi was mentioned as second wife and the two children as children from the second wife.
3. Because there were two conflicting certificates, on 21st September, 2005, the Director General of Police sent a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali District, Bihar to verify the matter after getting an inquiry conducted in the same. The inquiry was conducted and the following report was submitted:-
"According to your instruction in letter dt. 13.3.07, today on 16.3.07 local inquiry was conducted. During the said inquiry it was found that Lt. Sunil Kumar S/o. Lt. Viswanath Singh, Vill. & P.O. Poni Hasanpur, P.S. & District Vaishali was a N.K. in 6th Bn. T.S.R. of Tripura State. From the local people we came to know that his old aged mother is still alive and Lt. Sunil Kumar Married Sunita Devi D/O Naval Kishore Oza, Vill. Khobra P.S. Sadar, Dist. Muzaffarpur but no child was born out of their wed lock. Thereafter he married Shyama Devi D/O Awadesh Singh, of Sorhantha, P.S. Vaishali (Balsar O.P) Dist. Vaishali Bihar and two children namely Shri Avinash Kumar aged 9 years and Kumari Kanupriya aged 6 years was born.
Under the above facts and circumstances the family description of Lt. Sunil Kumar is as follows:-
1) Smt. Sunita Devi - First Wife.
2) Smt. Shyama Devi - Second Wife - from her one son and one daughter was born.
3) Avinash Kumar - Son - aged about 9 years.
4) Kanu Priya - Daughter aged about-6 years"
From this report, it is obvious that Sunil Kumar Singh had two wives i.e. Shyama Devi and Sunita Devi. He also had two children from the second wife. He had also left behind his aged mother who was still alive at the time when the report was given.
4. The two widows of Sunil Kumar Singh entered into an agreement on 24.11.2005 which was duly notarized and in terms of this agreement they agreed that the pension in respect of Sunil Kumar Singh would be given to Sunita Devi and Shyama Devi would be entitled to get compassionate employment in place of her husband and all the remaining cash on account of the retiral benefits would be given to the two children under the guardianship of Sunita Devi. Not only this, the agreement also states that the entire guardianship of the family will rest with Sunita Devi.
5. When this matter was placed before the Commandant of the 6th Bn. Tripura State Rifles he sent the following communication to the two widows:-
"Please find enclosed herewith a copy of the clarification regarding settlement of pensionary and other terminal benefits in respect of Lt. Sunil Kumar, Ex-NK No. 85011093 of 6th Bn Tripura State Rifles (IR-II) as clarification given by the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
