IN THE HIOH gOUST OP GHHATTIS3AKH AT BILASPUR. t? _ R-^ SEOONS APPBAL N0. f^] /2004 8®^S!T APPELLANT •DEPENDANT N0.1 VEKSUS Shyam Kamari W/e late Jagdhari (Daughter ofVishram), agsd about 33 years, R/o. Gelhapani, P.S. Chinniri, Tah. Manendragarh, Distt, Koria (C.G.}« SESPONDENIS PIAINTIFF 1. z ^^' ^9 / ^4V^[ //y;v-%'' /yf^:y ^ l^". ^- ^ ^ p. 4- Siyawati w/e. Uma Pandife (as per piaint wife o£ late Jagdhari) , aged about 38 ysars, R/o. vill. Pasouri, P.S. Kelhari, Distt. Koria (C.G.). Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L. Glalrimiri Area, Malvia nagar, west Chirimiri, Distt. KoriaCos.) Mines Manager, S.E.C.L. Koria, Colliery, P.S. Ctoirimiri Dis-tt. Karia (C.G«). Regional Gonunissioner, Coal Mines (Provident Funds) Shakti Nagar, Gupteshwgr Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P,). tf, 'A SEOOND APPEAIi ONDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROGEDURE 03T>E. -22 SH^TERT 'STT^r ait]r4;gf?g' 'w'a. »tN!^3|^i,^ ^ ~ss[ "4iA|i<n<<, aTflu'is, (s|dl'tf^< ?rq^^i tii*iwrai*<i«h .^.•.^9.:.nl^ Rl'b^ 3n^T?TaRRg1?(T 06/10/2005 Shri J.K.Shastri, Couns|el forthe appellant. Shri Anurag Shrivastva Shri Vinay Harit, Sei|iior Advocate with Shri N.K. Shrivastva, Counset for respondents No. was that she be declared the and daughters Ku. Sobha a^ and consequent to that she to defendant No.l/appellant. Jagdhari in accordance with service record as nominee. °bi'i)Ici<fl-f tiit<i-iT?;tei^t<Ri<^R ^;3lRpT3T)^I Counsel for the respondent No.1 . to4. Heard on admission. Respondent No.1 Siy^wati filed a Civil Suit in the Court &f CMt Judge, Class II, Manendragai]h for declaration and injunction. Her prayer legally wedded wife of deceased Jagdhari ^d Ku. Nandita to be his legitimate chitdren s entitled to receive various amounts left by the deceased Jagdhari. Sh^ also prayed for issuance of prohibitory injunction order so that the ai^iount left by the deceased may not be paid She pleaded that she was married to Hindu rites and rituais, and out of their wedlock Ku. Sobha and Ku. Fflandita were born. Deceased Jadghari was an employee in SECL, wh4 during his iife time nominated her in his After the death, appellant/defendant No.1 ^ ISisMl— ._._.,. J- ^!? y TST •^1<IICI<1, IS'Tfltf'lto, RlOKriy H114MI 9l<4|ct) SO^T^iT R-ficban^r aiT]'wfff?(T SH^T ^raTSiTC (rf?(T ^rilfertt-T TORft'^'fei^ (fezR ^>3lf^T3II^T clairted sMe started claiming the death legally married wife of Ji appeilanVdefendant No.1 Jagdhari. Appellant did not was married to Jagdhari, but was married to respondent lived together for 7-8 years, divorce which took place respondentNo.l/plaintiff contaj Ku. Sobha and Ku. Nandita After customary divoree, nominated her in some of the wedlock, Ku. Pooja and Indra the ciaim of respondent No.' that she is the legally wedded Respondents No.| Jagdhari made nomination for his brother Lahar Sai, denied clafms of Jagdhari stating herself to be the ligdhari. Even in succession case, herself to be the legally wedded wife of (jeny the fact that respondent No.l/plaintiff s^e pleaded that 20 - 21 yeare ago Jagdhari Notlfplaintiff and they as husband and wife t^ereafter they separated due to customary b^tween them. After customary divorce ifsted second marriage with Uma Pandit and ^fwe born as a result of second wedlock. Ja£]dhari married to Shyam Kumari and ^ervice records, as nominee. Out of their IKumar were born, therefore, she denying .1/^laintiff filed counter claim for declaration v((ife ofdeceased Jagdhari. |2 and 3 although admitted that deceased Igratuity in favour of respondent No.1 and the claim. Respondent No.3 unveils that Wife : oje(jj se^pesj gggi. 'py sBeyjejfti npuiH 94t 10 (z) 62 uoipes pue (B)£ uoip^s 10 suoisiAOJd •uisLj} uaaMtsq soe|d ^oo} sojoAip Ajeujoisno ou pue ueiipBep pasesosp ^o uejpiiijo sieiuiiiBai s^e eijpueN '"»pue eqqog •rr^ pue SJIM pepp9 A||eB3| OL|I si ^iiuieid/i.'o^ luspuodssj leq} A|tusjjnouoo p|sq 9Aeq MOjsq sijnoo 34} yfog •|ee<jde 041 pessitusip pue ynoo jeifl eqi p Buipuy 341 peuujyuoo 'souepiA^ pue spe^ sqi ||e Buuspisuoo •isye 'pnoo e}et|sddv }sjy peujBS) 'jeeddEt isjy u| •SIUJB|O ©4}eAieosj 0} psniiug si gqs 'uoiteuiuuou jed se pue ujo^) sjsm etipueN 'n»pue ei|qos •n»>|oo|ps jieiji y> ino pue ueiipBer ps|se9oep p S^IM psppsm A||eB9| ei|) si I.'ON iuspuodsaj leyi p9je|09p ynoj) |eui p^UJe^^ 'ijpuBcj etun o} psueiu sew |,'o|sj luspuodssj leiji psAojd|iou SB i| 'ueqpBep pssesoep pue I.'ON tuepuodsej usoM}eq soe]d )jooi |aojoAip ON 'ueijpBep pesesogp pue |,'o|s) luspuodssj yi sjeii|Bnep si(< eje eiipueN •n» pue e4qo9 •n»leiji pjsy souspiAS 94} Buiieioejdde |jeye 'pnoo |Bj4 psujes-^ •sseo jisqi ^o uoddns ui souatiiAe Jiey} psonppe saived •siisodsp pun^ luspiAojd 314 iot yi}U!e|d/fO[s| luspuods^j psieuituou ueqpBer paseaoep l^lteii^c^ :a2ilyi ^1 .^ .^ttUi tyal^iife fi^a^ftuaai^ite AUtiglBltUt MfehM^ue iKmi^'Iktt^a'js^uiib-teE £SjBaiiteE J^lteifeU^) libls^Ue ^l' ZZ-3H-IX <§ XI-HC-22 3^9T "i|Wlc1<l, »TTly'l6, (s|<-)ltiy 3TT^?1 4;1<*» intiiwTg»*Ti<ti f^5% an^TW f?:TR;3T1^r ^iTIWgfl^' jli,.. sn^rgRTTWtifgd' "Sec&'on 3(a) "usage" signi^ conSnuously a^d uniformly ctoseived Sor a long further ffme, has Hindus in an^ grouporfamity\ Provided unreasonable 4' Prowctecf appScable on/rf discontinued b'jf 29(2} Nothin^ deemed to custom fo obtain the whether obt^ined the fbrce of law among local area, tribe, community, aflect or conferred solertinized commencemeritofttiis Acf From the abov! customary divorce, necessar *i^fri'lfl-f Mi><<'<TffteiA<Ri^;re ^i3(f^TT3n^T fhe expressions "custom" and any rule which, having been fte rule is certain and not ^ropposed to public policy; and that in the case of a rute to a fero//y rf has not been ^ the family. contained Sn this Act shall be any right recognized by by any special enactment dfssolution of a Hindu marriage, before or after the 9 provision it is apparent that to prove pleadings in consonance with the above provisions are required to be ijnade and that are required to be proved by specific evidence, but in the injstant case, lack of pleading as wel! as prove ispresent. 1i • i _{ts^iM)__ XI-HC-22 an^rqiT f^IRi3I1^T aiii'ffigfer a 3^ ^ioi^, s?frm?, t^irey !\ KTOdlShKIW gn^TCTdTW^T 1 am of the opini the courts below have givei evidence on record and after the assessment made by the 1 am of the opinion that question of law, therefore, de dismissed. 4>wfri41^ KitfcTr'ffte^tif^OTc ^srf^TSd^T i|on that comptete case rests on facts. Both concurrent findings after evaluating the Igoing through the evidence, 1 do not find Cfourts below , in any way, pen/erse. his appeal does not involve any substantial >erves to be dismissed and is accordingly Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge ^lA'.O \ .[t5*W* 'J' Ws'te!!^*^^- •^.-1 ^^^-^-