Sraboni Ghosh Vs the Hailakandi Municipal Board and 4 Ors.

Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner married her husband Sri Rajkumar Ghosh under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage Officer at 242 Netaji Road, Khagra, DistMurshidabad, West Bengal. A female child was born on 10.05.2017, whose name was Ridhvika Ghosh. In the birth certificate dated 02.05.2017 issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, in the name of Ridhvika Ghosh, the father’s name was written as late Rajkumar Ghosh.

¶22

2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the writ petition can be closed, if a direction is issued to the respondent No. 5, to give a photocopy of the death certificate of late Rajkumar Ghosh to Ridhvika Ghosh, the daughter of late Rajkumar Ghosh for educational purposes.

¶23

3. Mr. H. Alam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the husband of the respondent No. 5 died on 31.07.2023. The respondent No. 5 was the 1^st wife of late Rajkumar Ghosh, who she married on 08.03.2012. A daughter was born to the respondent No. 5 and the late Rajkumar Ghosh, whose name was Rajoswee Ghosh. Mr. Alam submits that the respondent No. 5

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

being the 1^st wife, the petitioner cannot be the wife of late Rajkumar Ghosh, as Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows for only one living wife. He however submits that a photocopy of the death certificate of late Rajkumar Ghosh can be given to the daughter of the petitioner, assuming Ridhvika Ghosh is the daughter of late Rajkumar Ghosh. However, no prejudice should be caused to the respondent No. 5, by giving a photocopy of the death certificate of late Rajkumar Ghosh to Ridhvika Ghosh.

¶26

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that he is agreeable to Ridhvika Ghosh being given a photocopy of the death certificate of late Rajkumar Ghosh, which should not cause any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner’s claim to be the 1^st wife of late Rajkumar Ghosh.

¶27

5. Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the District Commissioner, Hailakandi submits that the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Hailakandi has written a letter dated 27.11.2024 to Shri M. Chetia, Junior Government Advocate, stating that the Municipal Board would proceed in accordance with any direction passed by this Court, regarding the issuance of a death certificate.

¶28

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶29

7. The letter dated 27.11.2024 issued by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Hailakandi is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X.

¶30

8. In view of the consent of the parties, this Court directs the respondent No. 1 to issue the original death certificate of late Rajkumar Ghosh to the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 shall thereafter give a photocopy of the

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

death certificate of late Rajkumar Ghosh to Ridhvika Ghosh, who is apparently in need of the same for educational purposes. The above should not be construed to mean that any finding or observation has been made by this Court, with regard to whether the petitioner or the respondent No. 5 is the 1^st wife of late Rajkumar Ghosh and whether their children are the children of the late Rajkumar Ghosh, which can be decided in a Civil Court.

¶33

9. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner had filed CR Case No. 1450/2023 in the Court of the CJM, Hailakandi, praying to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Registrar, Birth and Death, Municipal Board, Hailakandi, the respondent No. 5, the Joint Director, Hailakandi and the Chairman, Municipal Board, Hailakandi, due to the death certificate of late Rajkumar Ghosh not being issued to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that nothing would survive in CR Case No. 1450/2023, if the birth certificate is issued to the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 5 gives a photocopy of the same to Ridhvika Ghosh, in terms of the present order. However, the closure of the above case, as per the discretion of the concerned Court as per law, should not cause any prejudice to the rights of the parties, in respect of their other claims.

¶34

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Sraboni Ghosh v. the Hailakandi Municipal Board and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sraboni Ghosh v. the Hailakandi Municipal Board and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mainul Ali Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bidur Chandra Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Swapan Kr Ray Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S Sterling Associate Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Krishna Enterprise and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.