in"!^!T^^^P i^S^li^^^^^ a HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR First Aopeal NoA1ff007 Singte Bench: Hon'bte Shri Diiip RaosaheB Deshmukh, J. ABpellant PteintiffNo. 1 Respondents Defendants !; :1:: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Srnt. Hembai Wd/o Sevak Ram, Aged about 44 years, R/6 Golai Datai North Jharkhand, P^. & Tehsil-Manendragarh, Df^. Korea Versus South Eastern Coalfield Limital Through Chief Manager Hadeo -Arsa, South Jharkhaml^ Tehsil - Manendragaiti,,Di^.Korea(CG) Regional ©<aee Coal Mine Providart Fund Gu|rt8shwar.)abalpur(M.13) Radha Bai alleged W/o Sewakrani, R®Khongapani, Througti Mahatar Kewat, Peon, PaWca Dtwwa, KhOngapani, P.S. & Tehsil- Manendragarh, Dist Xorea ^X3) G^ Bai Ofo Sakhi Ram, Alteged Wte Late Sevakram, R/o Chappan Dafai Khongapanj, P.S. & Tehsil- Manendragarh, Dist: Korea ^3G) Jagafrain S/o Bisun R/o Dond Nayapara, P.S. Kasdpl, Dist Rajpur 1(CG):- •/..;••',.•.'•••.^ Ku. Ni^ia, Dayghter, Aged about 14 years. Ku.Neetu,ttoughter,Agedafaout12 ysare- Raj Kamal, Son, Aged aboirf 10 years.', • • :"•• : ; • 1 . , . Raja.Spn, Aged aboytSyears Responclente & to 9 art minors through Natural guardiah and nK<t friend Srnt. Gas BaiW/oSevalaam, All are R/o Chappan Dafei, Khongapahi, , . Tehsil - Manendragarti,Di^:Koreas^3G) Ralcesh Kumar, Ste LateSevafa^m, agedabout24years Ku. Usha, Dte. l^te Sevakram, Aged about 24 yeare Respondent No. 10 & 11 are R/o Go!aiDafaiNorthJharkhand,13.S.& Tehsil -R4anendragarh,Dist: Korea (Respondent No. 10 & 11 are PlaintiffNo.2&3) Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civa nroceelure Present- Shri Vinit Pandey, counsel for the appellant. ORALORDER (Passedon 16t!>Aprit,2007) l-1eard on admission. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the juc^ment and decree dated 18.1.2007 passed in civil suitNo.16-A/2006by the ^lditfonal District Judge (FTC) Manendragarh.DJstt: Korea (CG) whereby the sult for declaration for entitlement to receive ie amount of gratuity, provident ftind ete left by the deceased Sevak Ram, as the widowofSevak Ram ws®dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for ttie appellant did not dispiite that Sevak Ram was anemployee of S.E.C.Lwho diedon 18.5.2002. SevakRam had nominated the appellant Hem Bai to receive the amounts of gratuity, provfdent ftmd etc after his death. Since Radha Bai preferred an objection before fte S.E.C.L on flie ground that Hem Bai was notthe legally mamed wife of Sevak Ram, the appellant herein was directed to file a civil sutt for declaration of entitlement to the moneysteft by Sevak Ram. Learned counsel fbr the appellant has ateo not disputed this fact during argumentthat Radha Bai was the legally marrted wife ofSevak Ram but contended that aceorcBngtothe 1 : . • 1 - ' : custom prevalent jn the community, a divoree had been obtained where after Hem Bai, ttie appellant herein had marrie^Sevak Ram. LeamedTOunsel for the appeltant alsodid notdispute that inthe plairrt no speeific atl^ations as tothedateoreventheyearofdivorceweremade. Learnedtower Coyrt has recorded a findlng that Radha Bai was the (egally married wife of Sevak Ram. Since the faGturn of divoree has neither been sperfieally pleaded nor proved, the learned lower Cbyrt was wholly justified in disntissing the suit upon a properappreciation ofevidence on record. ^^ ^ fflRStfiBSBSESf •M?-i:^i?^l?Kf>^£:iiii!^i K 4.1n this view of the matter, 1 do notfind any substanee inthisappeal which is devoid ofany merit. Appeat is aasordingly dismissed m /»CTff»e.. 5. In view of ttie above, I.A. No. 1/2007 for grant of stayatso stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukl Judge Priya