R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 Date of Decision: 13.07.2009 Smt. Sumitra Devi widow of Late No. 1196998 Gnr Pribu Dayal, r/o village Tigara, P.O. Gujarwas, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana). ... Appellant Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Director of Artillery (Per-6), Army Headquarters, D.H.Q., P.P. New Delhi-11. 3. The Chief Record Officer, Records, The Artillery Nasik Road Camp (Maharashtra). 4. The C.C.D.A. (Pension), (Grants-4 Section), Allahabad (U.P.). 5. The Defence Pension Disbursing Officer (D.P.D.O), Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh (Haryana). ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 2 dated 26.07.2001, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, and the judgement and decree, dated 08.10.2003, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Narnaul, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, against the judgement and decree of the trial Court. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Pirbhu Dayal, husband of the plaintiff/appellant, was employed in Artillery Regiment. He retired w.e.f 01.09.1980. He was granted service pension w.e.f. that date. Pirbhu Dayal, died on 05.01.1992. On his death, the plaintiff/appellant, made a claim for family pension. The defendants/respondents, after verifying the service documents, passed the order for payment and sent the same to the Chief Records Officer. No response, was, however, received from the Chief Records Officer, although a period of five years had expired, after the passing of order by the CDA (P), Allahabad, dated 29.08.1996. It was stated that the Chief Records Officer, had withheld the pension, issued to the plaintiff/appellant, unreasonably, although all the documents, were submitted. The plaintiff/appellant, filed an appeal, before the Director, Artillery. The same was sent to the Chief Records Officer, for forwarding the pension book of the plaintiff, but he (Chief Records Officer), did not care to send the pension book. Claiming that the plaintiff/appellant, was entitled to the family pension, and the same had been unreasonably withheld,a suit for declaration, was filed. 3. The defendants/respondents, put in appearance, filed written statement, and took up various objections. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by time. It was further pleaded that the Civil Court, had got no jurisdiction, to try the suit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, had got R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 3 no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit. It was stated that the plaintiff, was not the legally wedded wife of deceased Pirbhu Dayal, and, as such, was not entitled, to the family pension. It was further stated that Pirbhu Dayal, nominated Smt. Sumitra daughter of Bahadur Singh,during his lifetime. He died, on 05.01.1992. It was further stated that an affidavit duly attested by Notary Public, mentioning that the husband of the plaintiff, expired, on 05.01.1992, leaving behind Smt. Sumitra (widow), son Pawan Kumar, aged 15 years, and son Sanjay Kumar, aged 12 years, was also received. It was further stated that family pension and children allowance claim forms were forwarded to Smt. Sumitra Devi, and, those forms, were returned by the postal authorities, with the remarks “Addressee re-married and gone somewhere else”. It was further stated that, on receipt of the claim papers of Smt. Sumitra Devi, certain observations and clarifications were sought by the Artillery Records, vide letter dated 25.02.1997. It was further stated that, in the service documents of Late Pirbhu Dayal, name of his one son Master Ajit Singh, was only recorded. It was further stated that the plaintiff, failed to furnish full particulars, with regard to her date of marriage with Pirbhu Dayal, her date of birth, and her father's name. It was further stated that the whereabouts of Master Ajit Singh, were not given. It was further stated that, due to the deceptive statements, made by the plaintiff, Record Officer, made investigation, through the Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh, vide letter dated 26.02.1997. It was further stated that, as per the Police report, Sumitra Devi, first wife of late Pirbhu Dayal, had remarried with some other person, and deserted him, before his death. Pirbhu Dayal, developed relations with Smt. Chand Kaur, and two sons, were born to her from such relationship. It was further stated that Chand R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 4 Kaur @ Sumitra Devi, is not the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal. It was further stated that Smt. Chand Kaur, impersonated her, as Sumitra Devi, and, applied for the grant of family pension, claiming herself to be his legally wedded wife. It was further stated that, as per the Army instructions, only the legally wedded wife of deceased pensioner, was entitled to family pension. It was further stated that, as such, the claim of the plaintiff for family pension, was legally, and validly rejected. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD iii) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD v) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD vi) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD vii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, held that the plaintiff failed to prove that, she was the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal, and, as such, was not entitled to the family pension, claimed by her. It was further held by the trial Court, that since the plaintiff, failed to prove, that she was legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal, she had got no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the suit. Ultimately, the suit, was dismissed. R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 5 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant, which was also dismissed, by the Court of District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgement dated 08.10.2003. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the Courts below, were wrong, in holding, that the plaintiff/appellant, was not the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal. He further submitted that, from the Police report, it was proved, that she was the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal, but the same was wrongly ignored by the Courts below. He further submitted that Sumitra Devi wife of Pribhu Dayal, had deserted him, during his life time, and, as such, he contracted marriage with the plaintiff/appellant, and, two sons from this relationship were born. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, and perverse, were liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, since the plaintiff/appellant, failed to prove, that she was the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal, deceased pensioner, she was not entitled to claim family pension, and, her claim, was rightly rejected by the defendants. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, on the ground, that she was not entitled to the family pension, as she was not the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal, being legal, and valid, were liable to be upheld. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 6 contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. With a view to succeed, in her suit, the plaintiff/appellant, was required to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal. Sumitra Devi, plaintiff/appellant, appeared as her own witness, in the witness box, as PW1, and deposed, that she was married to Pirbhu Dayal, and after his death, she was entitled to the family pension. During the course of her cross-examination, she stated that, she did not know, when her marriage took place with Pirbhu Dayal. She further stated that she did not know about the parentage of Master Ajit Singh. She admitted that the Police verified the facts. She did not state even a single word, as to which ceremonies were performed, at the time of her alleged marriage with Pirbhu Dayal, and, as to which persons were present, at the time of the said marriage. No Sarpanch, or Panch, or respectable of the village, was examined, to prove the factum, that she was the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal. She also could not furnish an explanation, as to why, she did not produce any witness, to prove, that she was the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal. DW1/A is a copy of the affidavit of Sumitra Devi, vide which, the factum, with regard to the death of Pirbhu Dayal, on 08.06.1996, was intimated. The plaintiff/appellant, was also required to send a non- remarriage certificate, if she was, at all, the widow of Pirbhu Dayal, duly attested by the Sarpanch of village Gunwani, and countersigned by the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board. No evidence, was produced, by her, that any such certificate was sent to the authorities concerned. Under these circumstances, the Courts below, were right, in holding, that the plaintiff/appellant, failed to prove, that she was the legally wedded wife of R.S.A. No. 176 of 2004 7 Pirbhu Dayal, and, as such, was not entitled to the family pension, after his death. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that the plaintiff/appellant, was not the legally wedded wife of Pirbhu Dayal; that she did not send non-remarriage certificate, duly attested by the Sarpanch and countersigned by the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board; and that she was not entitled to the family pension, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, warrant no interference. The Courts below, were, thus, right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 13.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE