IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Children of void marriage are legitimate for the purpose of inheritance of property of their ancestors.
(2) Precedent – A case is only authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Petitioner No. 1 Sunita Devi claims that her alias name is Ankush Kumari. In the present writ application, she asserts herself to be the second wife of late Gauri Shankar Prasad, who died in harness as a Sub-Inspector in Bihar Police. It has been claimed in the writ application that petitioners no. 2 and 3, who are minor children, are born out of the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and late Gauri Shankar Prasad.

2. The Respondent No. 6 is, admittedly, the first wife of late Gauri Shankar Prasad. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of a communication dated 29.11.2018, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Katihar addressed to the District Provident Fund Officer, Katihar for payment of General Provident Fund amount in favour of Respondent No. 6, consequent upon death of the deceased employee.

3. The petitioners are seeking a direction from this Court, commanding the respondents to first consider the claim of the petitioners, who, it is stated, are wife and minor children of the deceased employee, and then issue an order afresh in accordance with law.

4. I have heard Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.H. Khan, SC-1 for the State of Bihar and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6, online.

5. Certain documents have been brought on record on behalf of petitioners to convince this Court that petitioner no. 1 is the second wife and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are children of the deceased employee, which I shall refer to at appropriate stage.

6. Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted at the very outset that it is true that petitioner no. 1 cannot be treated to be legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, question of determination of legitimacy of petitioners no. 2 and 3 does not arise there being overwhelming evidence in the nature of documents to substantiate that they are children of petitioner no. 1 with the deceased employee. He has drawn my attention to judgment dated 30.06.2013, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Maintenance Case No. 77M of 2013 filed by Respondent No. 6, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-8 to a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners to contend that she (Respondent No. 6) herself had alleged in an application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the said court that the deceased employee had developed illicit relationship with ‘one Sunita Devi’. He has also drawn my attention to a copy of the sale-deed and SBI Life Insurance premium receipt to make out a case that petitioner no. 1 is the second wife of the deceased employee who was made nominee in the Insurance Policy. Faced with an observation made by this Court as to how this Court, exercising plenary jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can go into the facts which are in dispute, he has relied on Supreme Court’s decision in case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 to contend that the petitioners, particularly petitioners no. 2 and 3, being minors and presently having become destitutes, consequent upon death of their sole bread-earner, may not be relegated to face the rigours of regular trial or seek succession certificate. He has submitted that the documents, which have been brought on record, raise a strong presumption in favour of petitioner no. 1 of having lived with the deceased employee for a long spell as husband and wife. He has urged that though marriage of petitioner No. 1 with the deceased employee during the life time of his first wife (Respondent No. 6) cannot be treated to be lawful, sons born out of the said relationship are still legitimate by virtue of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which states that children of a void marriage are legitimate. Such being the position, a heavy burd