Dismissed

Sheo Kumar Ram v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Dec 2021WP(C)/6351/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to include his second wife as pension nominee. Court held marriage was void as it occurred while first wife was alive and a registration alone does not validate it. Denied relief but granted liberty to approach again if marriage becomes valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to approach respondent authorities again if a valid marriage subsists between parties.

Sheo Kumar Ram Vs the Union of India and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010023512015

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6351/2015

¶5

SHEO KUMAR RAM

¶6

EX-BARBAR/ER/COY/MLG, S/O- LT. RAM BRICH RAM, VILL.- GUABARI, P.O.- FAKIRGRAM, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY., MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, NEW DELHI.

¶9

2:THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER RPF N.F. RAILWAY ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION P.O.- ALIPURDUAR DIST.- ALIPURDUAR DIST.- ALIPURDUAR WEST BENGAL. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON P.O.- MALIGAON DIST.- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 781012.

¶10

4:THE DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI P.O.- MALIGAON DIST.- KAMRUP M

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

ASSAM PIN- 781012

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S PARVEEN

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.U K NAIR

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶16

Date : 10-12-2021

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Heard Mr. Z Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have noticed that earlier Ms. M Barman, learned counsel had represented the Railways, but the learned counsel is not present today when the matter is called. Accordingly, we requested Mr. Brijesh Sarma, learned counsel who also a standing counsel for the Railways to represent in the matter and accordingly we have heard Mr. Brijesh Sarma on behalf of the Railways.

¶19

The petitioner Sheo Kumar Ram was a Barbar in the Northeast Frontier Railway and he retired from service on 31.08.1997. After his retirement, he had been paid all the pensionery benefits and accordingly, at present is regularly drawing his pension. The petitioner is apprehensive about the family pension that his wife may be entitled.

¶20

The first wife of the petitioner late Sahudra Devi. Sahudra Devi died on 08.05.2018 and for the purpose, a death certificate had been issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam. According to the petitioner, his first wife late Sahudra Devi was seriously ill during the later part of her life and therefore, in the circumstance, the petitioner had married Smti Sabitri Devi on 06.01.1993 by

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

performing the Hindu Rites and customs as may be prevalent and further the marriage was also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Guwahati.

¶23

In order to establish that the petitioner had married Smti Sabitri Devi as his second wife, a marriage agreement registered in the office of the SubRegistrar is relied upon.

¶24

A marriage agreement registered before the Sub-Registrar does not bestow any legality on any marriage that may have been performed. Further, we have taken note that even the marriage under the Hindu Rites and Customs was performed on 06.01.1993 on which date the first wife of the petitioner late Sahudra Devi was still alive. From such point of view also, the said marriage would be a void marriage under the law.

¶25

In the circumstance, we have to understand that there is no legally valid and acceptable marriage between the petitioner and his second wife Smti Sabitri Devi. This writ petition is instituted for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to include the name of Smti Sabitri Devi, the purported second wife of the petitioner as a nominee in the pension papers related to the petitioner.

¶26

As the marriage itself has to be concluded to be a not valid marriage, no such direction can be issued at this stage.

¶27

Mr. Z Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that as there is no valid and legally acceptable marriage presently existing between the petitioner and Smti Sabitri Devi and further as the first wife of the petitioner is also no more, there is no prohibition under the law for the petitioner to get married to Smti Sabitri Devi.

¶28

We do not express any view on the merit of such submission. But we leave it to the authorities to act accordingly as per law. If upon acting in such manner,

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

under the law, there would be any valid marriage between the parties, liberty would remain to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities again for the relief sought for in this writ petition.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Sheo Kumar Ram v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Kumar Ram v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhobroto Mazumdar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smti Juri Pathak Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Promud Kumar Baruah Vs Ramendra Nath Sharma

Md. Allaluddin @ Ala Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Mandira Debnath Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bapan Mandal Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.