Smti Seema Mazumdar Saikia @ Sima Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010202902023

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:7704

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5359/2023

¶6

SMTI SEEMA MAZUMDAR SAIKIA @ SIMA SAIKIA W/O LOKEN CH. SAIKIA, R/O SITALA BARI, WARD NO. 02, P.O. AND P.S. DIPHU, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG (ASSAM), PIN-782460

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶11

SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA MAIN ROAD KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶13

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29

¶14

5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX GUWAHATI-06

¶15

Page No.# 2/7

¶16

6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NORTH LAKHIMPUR NAKARI ROAD OPPOSITE TO DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS OFFICE LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN CODE-787001 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER DHAKUAKHANA TREASURY NATIONAL HIGHWAY 52 LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN CODE-787001

¶17

8:THE BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DHAKUAKHANA ASSAM LAKHIMPUR PIN CODE-787055

¶18

9:SMTI. HIMALAYA @ GITANJALI DAS D/O PARAMANANDA DAS R/O VILL-ARENGAPARA P.O. AND P.S.-GOLAGHAT DIST-GOLAGHAT (ASSAM) PI CODE-78562

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MS S Z HAYAT,MR. M R SODIAL,MR. B KHATONIAR

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. D DAS (R-9),SC, TREASURY,SC, PNB,SC, AG (A AND E),SC, SEC. EDU.

¶21

Page No.# 3/7

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

¶23

ORDER

¶24

02.06.2026

¶25

Heard Mr. S. S. S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 5; Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 6; Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4; Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, for the respondent No.7; and Ms. K. Bharali, learned counsel representing respondent No. 9.

¶26

2. The petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Loken Ch. Saikia, a retired Subject Teacher, who died on 02.05.2023. According to the petitioner, her marriage with the deceased was solemnized on 14.11.1989 and out of the said wedlock one son was born. It is her case that after the deceased was transferred to Lakhimpur in the year 2014, he allegedly entered into a relationship with respondent No. 9 and, under her influence, the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the service records of the deceased as a legal heir.

¶27

3 . The petitioner further submits that subsequently disputes arose between her and the deceased. However, the parties amicably settled their disputes by executing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.08.2022 and thereafter, they both jointly filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent before the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu on 05.08.2022. It is contended that before the divorce proceedings could concluded in a decree of dissolution of marriage, the deceased expired on 02.05.2023. As a result, the divorce proceeding was dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner, therefore, contends

¶28

Page No.# 4/7

¶29

that no decree of divorce having been passed during the lifetime of the deceased, the marital relationship between her and the deceased continued to subsist till the date of his death.

¶30

4 . The petitioner further contends that the marriage allegedly contracted by respondent No. 9 as claimed, during the subsistence of the petitioner’s marriage with the deceased is void in view of the provision under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, therefore, respondent No. 9 is not entitled to claim family pension or other retiral benefits as the widow of the deceased employee. It is also submitted that after the death of the deceased, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities requesting them not to release family pension or death benefits in favour of any other person. However, according to the petitioner, no action was taken on her representation.

¶31

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9 submits that respondent No. 9 is the legally wedded wife of Late Loken Ch. Saikia and that their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2013 according to Hindu rites, rituals and Sankari customs in the presence of members of both families. It is contended that during his lifetime the deceased treated respondent No. 9 as his wife and nominated her to receive pensionary benefits after his death with a view to securing her future and that of their daughter.

¶32

6. It is further submitted on behalf of respondent No. 9 that the petitioner’s claim of marriage is based on a Deed of Marriage Agreement dated 15.11.1989 and that the validity and legal effect of such marriage document are disputed. It is also contended that respondent No. 9 had no knowledge of the petitioner’s alleged marriage with the petitioner until July, 2022. Learned counsel further submits that in this regard, the respondent No. 9 has already instituted Title Suit No. 238/2025 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kamrup (M),

¶33

Page No.# 5/7

¶34

Guwahati seeking, inter alia, declarations that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, that the petitioner’s alleged marriage with the deceased is void and that the petitioner has no right to object to inclusion of respondent No. 9’s name in the Pension Payment Order dated 16.02.2023.

¶35

7 . Ms. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the said respondents, submits that during his lifetime the deceased approached the Principal of Pashim Dhakuakhana Higher Secondary School seeking change of nomination in his service records. In support of his claim, the deceased submitted a notarized No Objection Certificate dated 05.08.2022 purportedly executed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner categorically stated that she had no objection if her name was withdrawn as nominee from the service records of the deceased and another person’s name was substituted in its place. Pursuant thereto, the service records of the deceased employee were forwarded to the competent authority and the nomination was changed from Smti. Seema Mazumdar (petitioner) to Smti. Himalaya Das (Respondent No.9). Thereafter, pension papers were processed and the Pension Payment Order was issued in the name of respondent No. 9.

¶36

8 . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that it is an admitted position that no decree of divorce was passed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased before his death on 02.05.2023. Mere filing of a petition for divorce by mutual consent does not per-se dissolve a marriage unless a decree is passed by a competent court. Consequently, the marital status of the petitioner, if otherwise validly established, was not terminated by any decree prior to the death of the deceased.

¶37

Page No.# 6/7

¶38

9 . At the same time, respondent No. 9 asserts an independent claim as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and has already instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of her marital status and consequential rights. The rival claims of the petitioner and respondent No. 9 regarding their respective marital status vis-a-vis the deceased involve disputed questions of fact which requires proper appreciation of evidence by a competent civil Court having jurisdiction and this Court cannot appropriately adjudicate such matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

10 . This Court further finds that the question as to who is legally entitled to family pension and other death-cum-retiral benefits is basically connected with determination of the status of the rival claimants and the effect of the nomination made by the deceased in his service records. Such issues are required to be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable pension rules, subject to any declaration that may be rendered by a competent civil court.

¶40

11 . Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, this Court proposed to disposed of the matter; accordingly the writ petition is disposed of by directing the competent pension sanctioning authority to consider the petitioner’s representation as well as the claim of respondent No. 9 and pass a reasoned order regarding entitlement to family pension and other retiral benefits of Late Shri Loken Ch. Saikia in accordance with law.

¶41

12. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the authority shall take into consideration the following existing facts: (i) that no decree of divorce had been passed between the petitioner and the deceased prior to his death; (ii) That the deceased had already nominated the respondent No.9 in his service records as

¶42

Page No.# 7/7

¶43

his legal heir; (iii) that the Title Suit No. 238/2025 is the pending before the competent Court; and (iv) also consider the applicable provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the relevant pension rules.

¶44

13. In the event the competent authority is of the opinion that adjudication of entitlement depends upon determination of disputed questions relating to the marital status of the rival claimants, it shall be open to the authority to await an appropriate declaration from the competent civil court and thereafter act in accordance with such declaration.

¶45

14. In the premises above, it is provided that till a final decision is taken by the competent authority, or until appropriate orders are passed by the competent civil court, if family pension has not already been finally and irrevocably sanctioned and released, the same shall not be disbursed exclusively in favour of either claimant.

¶46

15 . The entire exercise shall be expedited and completed preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶47

16. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Smti Seema Mazumdar Saikia @ Sima Saikia v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Seema Mazumdar Saikia @ Sima Saikia v. the State of Assam and 8 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

Padmeswar Borah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Noor Sahanara Begum Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Maharshi Sarma, Advocate Vs the State of Assam

Ncd Sr Secondary School Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mr Baneswar Das Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Sofiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.