1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2008 Gangubai W/o.Kalyan Gawali PETITIONER VERSUS Suman W/o.Mahadeo Gawali and another RESPONDENTS Mr.A.V.Patil, with Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for respondent no.1 Respondent no.2 absent even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. By this Civil Revision Application, the petitioner applicant has challenged the order and judgment passed in R.C.A.No.120/2007, by the Ad­hoc District Judge, Latur. 2. Due to demise of one Mahadeo Gawali, the respondent no.2 herein have filed an application for grant of succession certificate before the Civil Judge, S.D.Latur. This grant of succession certificate was opposed by the present petitioner applicant and the first respondent to the present Civil Revision Application. After hearing the parties, the learned Lower Court was pleased to grant a 2 succession certificate only in favour of the present applicant petitioner that she is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.86,128/­. The claim of both the respondents was denied by the Learned Lower Court. Being aggrieved by the said order passed dated 03/07/2007, the first respondent filed RCA No.120/2007 before the District Court at Latur. Vide his order dated 01/12/2007, the learned First Appellate Court pleased to allow particularly the regular civil appeal by setting aside the order passed below the grant of succession certificate and the order passed by the learned Trial Court and it was declared that the petitioner and the first respondent are entitled for grant of succession certificate of which judgment and order is under challenge by way of the present civil revision application. 3. The petitioner applicant in this Civil Revision Application is the mother of the deceased is not under dispute by all the parties to the present revision application, as well as the parties to the proceedings before both the courts below. It is alleged that the first respondent was the divorcee of the deceased and the divorce was customary divorce by filing the divorce deed which was registered with the Registrar. With the assistance of advocate for petitioner as well the first respondent, perused the entire record and proceeding annexed with the present civil revision application. On careful perusal of both the judgments of both the Courts below, I do not find anywhere that the Divorce Deed filed which is known as a Customary Divorce is re­ cognised in Law in the community at large. If there is no evidence before the Courts below that the divorce by Divorce Deed is re­ 3 cognised as Customary Divorce in the community, then this Divorce Deed bears no meaning in the eye of Law to hold that there is no marriage tie in existence between the deceased and the first respondent when the first respondent also claimed to be a successor of the deceased. 4. Once it is held by both the Courts below, as well as in Law that there is no divorce of the first respondent with the deceased, then her status will remain as the widow of the deceased. The widow of the deceased as well as mother covers under Clause I to the schedule annexed to section 8 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Class I heirs are entitled to the estate of the deceased if the deceased expired without any testamentary document, in Law “intestate”. This position was well considered by the First Appellate Court by rightly setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court and grant of succession certificate in favour of the present petitioner applicant and the first respondent, as they both are covered as heirs in Class­I to the Schedule of Section 8 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On clear consideration of this legal position, I do not find any fault in the order passed by the Learned First Appellate Court which require any interference at the hands of this Court. 5. In the premise, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Application. Hence Civil Revision Application stands dismissed/ rejected by confirming the order passed by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.120/2007, dated 01/12/2007. Thus Civil 4 Revision Application stands dismissed in limine. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/cra42­08