RAJNI RANI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

(2.) This appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 11483 of 2023 whereby the writ petition itself has been dismissed.

(3.) Facts of the case as have been noticed by learned Single Judge are that one Bhojraj Singh was an assistant teacher in Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri. He superannuated on 30/6/2012 and later died on 2/10/2021. The petitioner/appellant came up with a case of payment of family pension on the ground that she has contracted marriage with late Bhojraj Singh and has been residing as such for the last several years. In order to put-forth its case, the petitioner-appellant contended that though Bhojraj Singh had initially contracted marriage with contesting private respondent Usha Devi but the marriage ultimately did not succeed and the marital parties parted ways. Proceeding under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. had been initiated by Usha Devi in which a compromise was arrived at, as per which, the parties had separated. It was therefore urged that once Usha Devi parted ways with the deceased employee no right survived in her as against the deceased employee. The deceased employee contracted marriage with the present petitioner-appellant. Various documents have been relied upon in order to prove the factum of marriage. It also appears that in proceeding before the authorities, the petitioner-appellant also set up a claim of second marriage of Usha Devi which fact is specifically disputed by the private respondent. The appellant also claim to have obtained succession certificate and relying upon it claim for family pension was put-forth by the appellant which has been rejected by the authorities. The writ petition filed against such order has also been dismissed.