R.S.A. No. 1659 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1659 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 1,2011 Smt. Harbans........................................... Appellant versus Director General of Police, Punjab and others ............................................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant. ... RITU BAHRI, J. C.M. No. 4606-C of 2011 For the reasons given in the application, the delay in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. C.M. Allowed. R.S.A. No. 1659 of 2011 This Regular Second Appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Chandigarh, whereby suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. R.S.A. No. 1659 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] Plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of family pension and other pensionary benefits including C.P. Fund etc. of late Daljit Kumar on account that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased. The plaintiff's case was that she was married to Constable Daljit Kumar in the year 1981. No issue was born out of the wedlock. In 1985 Daljit Kumar developed illegal relationship with defendant No.4 and three children (defendant Nos. 5 to 7) were born out of this illegal relationship. He died on 5.6.2006 and the plaintiff claims that she should be given the family pension and other retiral benefits. On notice, the defendants appeared and took the stand that the plaintiff is neither the wife of late Shri Daljit Kumar nor having relationship with the said Daljit Kumar. Plaintiff was married to one Joginder Singh who died in the year 2001. Defendant No.4-Smt. Rekha Devi was married to Daljit Kumar on 4.10.1981 in the presence of relations and friends. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4) Relief. R.S.A. No. 1659 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] On the basis of evidence led, the trial Court came to the conclusion that as per the voter list (Ex.D11) Harbans Kaur was depicted as wife of Joginder Singh. As per the averments of the defendant, plaintiff-Smt. Harbans had three children from her previous husband. Except for the ration card (Ex.P1) no evidence was led by the plaintiff that she was the legally wedded wife of Daljit Kumar. Defendant No.4, on the other hand, produced School Certificate of her children in which father's name was mentioned as Daljit Kumar. As per letter Ex.D10 defendant No.4 along with her three children were shown to be legal representatives of Daljit Kumar. This letter has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police. DW2 Surinder Singh, brother of the deceased Daljit Kumar, stated that defendant No.4 was the legally wedded wife of his brother. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal, the finding has been affirmed by the Appellate Court that plaintiff was married to one Joginder Singh son of Mangal Singh. Joginder Singh died in the year 2001-02 and the plaintiff has four children out of the said wedlock. The plaintiff took the plea that she took customary divorce from her first husband. But, no decree of divorce was placed before the Court. Once she admitted that she was married to Joginder Singh, she could not perform second R.S.A. No. 1659 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] marriage with Daljit Kumar. Her plea that she had taken customary divorce was rejected as she had not pleaded that she was governed by the custom and that customary divorce prevails amongst her community. As per the voters' list (Ex.D11) prepared in 1998 she has been shown as wife of Joginder Singh. This finding of fact does not require any interference and no substantial question of law is involved for adjudication by this Court. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ( RITU BAHRI ) 1.11.2011 JUDGE rupi