Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 20971 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2025

Smritilekha Mukherjee

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Ratikanta Pal.

For the State : Mr. Suddhadev Adak,

Mr. Chandan Mondal.

For the Purulia : Mr. Sougata Mitra,

Municipality. Mr. Nikhil Kr. Gupta,

Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Mr. Subhadeep Maitra.

For the respondent : Mr. Surajit Basu.

Heard on : 04.12.2025. Judgment on : 04.12.2025

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

In re: CAN 1 of 2025

1. The matter pertains to issuance of a death certificate of Gour Baran

Mukherjee in favour of Smt. Smritilekha Mukherjee, the petitioner herein. A connected application has been filed, inter alia, praying for addition of party by one Kunal Mukherjee, who claims himself to be

the son of Gour Baran Mukherjee.

2. Considering the fact that the death certificate is of the applicant’s father, I am of the view that the applicant should be added as a party to the petition.

3. Accordingly, I grant leave to the petitioner’s advocate-on-record to add Kunal Mukherjee as a party to the writ petition.

4. Mr Basu, learned advocate accepts service of the writ petition on behalf of the added respondent. The application being CAN 1 of

2025 is accordingly allowed. In re: WPA 20971 of 2025

1. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, I find that it is the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner was married to Gour Baran Mukherjee during his lifetime (hereinafter referred to as the “said deceased”). Though the marriage was solemnized on 16th January, 1998, the same was registered on 7th January, 2020. The factum of registration would corroborate from the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Office of the Registrar General of Marriages.

2. According to the death certificate of the deceased, the deceased died at the age of 69. Though the immediate cause of death is respiratory failure, however, “carcinoma pancreas” has also been highlighted by the Ex-House Physician of Deben Mahato Medical College &

Hospital, Purulia.

3. Noting that the deceased person’s death had occurred on 17th December, 2024 at 9:30 a.m., the petitioner has also produced the receipt issued by the Simulia Electric Chulli, run by the Purulia Municipality dated 17th December, 2024 to demonstrate that the petitioner had made over the dead body of the deceased to the concerned authorities for cremation.

4. I find that though, the petitioner had applied before the municipal authorities on 31st December, 2024 for issuance of a death certificate, the same is yet to be made over by the municipality.

5. According to the learned advocate for the municipality although, the municipality had called upon the petitioner to establish her status, the petitioner has failed to disclose appropriate documents.

6. The aforesaid contention of the learned advocate for the municipality is disputed by the learned advocate for the petitioner.

7. Learned advocate for the added respondent, on the other hand, would submit that he is the biological son of the deceased from the first wife, namely, Alo Mukherjee who had died on 29th May, 2017. He would submit that since the first wife was alive, the subsequent marriage was not valid, especially when the marriage certificate identifies that marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized in January 1998.

8. I, however, find that, prima facie, the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased. Admittedly, on the date when the certificate was issued, the first wife had already died.

9. Prima facie, therefore, even if the marriage, which was initially solemnized in the year 1998, was irregular, at the time of registration of such marriage there was no impediment in issuing such certificate, though the certificate could not be related back to the period when the first wife was alive. However, these issues are disputed questions and may not