1 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.193/2010 Sunita Sharma Vs. Hardayal and ors. Dated : 12.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr.Mukesh Kumar Verma for the appellant. *** Challenge in this Civil Second Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 12th January, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, No.1, Bharatpur in regular Civil Appeal No.21/2009 and the judgment & decree dated 19th February, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.1, Bharatpur in civil suit No.4/2008 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1 decreed the suit by way of compromise. The plaintiff- appellant being aggrieved with this judgment, preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 12th January, 2010. 2. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned judgments and relevant material on record, it is noticed that the deceased Niranjan Prasad was a Senior Teacher in a Government School. At the time of entering in service he nominated Hardayal as his nominee. Thereafter, on 2nd September, 1999, Niranjan Prasad married with Smt. Sunita Sharma. On 3rd February, 2003 Niranjan Prasad got the 2 name of the nominee changed and he made his wife Smt. Sunita Sharma his nominee. The entries in the relevant record were made by the Government accordingly. Both the appellants Smt. Sunita Sharma and Niranjan Prasad lived like husband and wife together and out of their wedlock one son Harendra Kumar Sharma was born. It is stated that on 1st February, 2006 Niranjan Prasad, Sr.Teacher, suddenly died of Cardiac failure. It has been submitted by the plaintiff-appellant that she obtained the amount of State Insurance and Gratuity from the Government and the Pension Pay Order was also released in her name, but the defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not make the payment of G.P.F. money, which the deceased Niranjan Prasad deposited from time to time. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated those very grounds in his arguments which have been set out in the memo of appeal. The learned Additional Civil Judge, decreed the suit on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The compound petition was filed by both the parties before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court read over the contents of the compound petition to both the parties, who stated them to be true. The compound petition had become the part of the decree but later on the appellant 3 plaintiff feeling aggrieved with the compromise decree preferred an appeal against the same. 4. The learned appellate Court found that the plaintiff-appellant had deserted her husband 4-5 years before his death. Both wife and husband understood each other that they could not live together, hence, both of them filed a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu marriage Act on 24th January, 2006 in the Court with a view to obtain the consent decree of divorce. Since the consent decree of divorce could not be given before the completion of six months of filing the petition, the Court adjourned the case to 26th July, 2006. The plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sunita Sharma was not living with her deceased husband Niranjan Prasad for the last 4-5 years. The appellant concealed all these facts and realised the amount of State Insurance and obtained a PPO in her favour. The learned appellate Court also found that the appellant plaintiff Smt. Sunita Sharma is also working as a Teacher and she had re-married with some other man. Hence, she was not entitled to claim the amount deposited in the G.P.F Account of deceased Niranjan Prasad. The learned Appellate Court critically analyzed all these facts and having appreciated the entire evidence in right perspective, dismissed the appeal of the 4 appellant. The impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is found to be just, proper and apt. It is based on sound and cogent reasonings and suffers from no infirmity. I am in unison with the finding of the learned Appellate Court observed that the appellant plaintiff was already living separately for the last 4- 5 years. Not only this, both the appellant and the deceased Niranjan Prasad filed a divorce petition under Section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act with a view to obtain consent decree of divorce. In fact, both the parties had taken the divorce from each other on that very date i.e.24.1.2006 when they had filed the petition. Thereafter the issuance of decree of divorce was merely a formality. 5. It is relevant to record that when the plaintiff appellant caused to be the wife of deceased Nirajan Prasad on 1st February, 2006 when he died of Cardiac failure, how could she be permitted to claim the amount deposited in the G.P.F Account. Besides, the appellant plaintiff herself is a Teacher and she has re- married to some other person. From that angle also, she is not entitled to claim the amount deposited in the GPF account of deceased Niranjan Prasad. The learned appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal with which I fully concur. The impugned judgments of the courts below do 5 not warrant any intervention and thus, the civil second appeal deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. For the reasons stated above, the civil second appeal fails and the same stands dismissed accordingly. 7. The impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2010 rendered by Additional District Judge, No.1, Bharatpur is confirmed. 8. No order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. pcg