RANJANA KAMBLE Vs. RANJANA ALIAS VIMALTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision filed under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the appellate order dated 14-10-2011 passed by District Judge, Korba in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 5/2009 arising from the order dated 15-1-2009 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Korba, in Succession Case No. 15/2002. Brief facts of the case are that : One Ashok Moti Ram Kamley died on 26-6-2002. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 claiming to be wife and children of late Ashok Moti Ram Kamley filed an application under Section 372 of the Act for grant of Succession Certificate, to receive retiral dues as well as Rs. 33,000/- lying deposit in the State Bank of India, Branch Korba and Rs. 50,000/- lying deposit, with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The trial Court holding, marriage of respondent No. 1 with deceased Ashok Moti Ram Kamley as null and void; respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as his illegitimate children; appellant as legally wedded wife of deceased; and respondent No. 8 as his mother, granted succession certificate in their favour.

(2.) On an appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the First Appellate Court held, the appellant re-married with one Chandan Singh in the life time of deceased and has forfeited her right to succeed the estate of the deceased, modified, the order and granted succession certificate in favour of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 8. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant referring to Sections 24 to 28 of Hindu Marriage Act and placing reliance upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Narsimhulu and others v. Smt. Manemma, 1988 AIR(AP) 309, would submit: the alleged re-marriage of the appellant with Chandan Singh in the life time of deceased Ashok Moti Ram Kamley is null and void in view of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955), and, therefore, that marriage is no marriage in the eye of law. At the most, it can be said the appellant was unchaste at the time of her husband's death; unchastity of a widow is not a bar to inherit her deceased husband's estate, and therefore, the appellate Court had committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the claim of appellant along with respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 8. He further submits that appellant is also nominee in the service record of deceased Ashok Motiram Kamley and the mother of deceased also deposed in her favour.