SEEMA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision application is to the common judgment and order dated 9/10/2015, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division in Misc. Application Requiring Judicial Inquiry (MARJI) No.72/2014 (Old MARJI No.243/2008, MARJI No.13/2010 and MARJI No.199/2009) and confirmed by the judgment and order dated 15/3/2019, passed by Additional District Judge-2, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No.147/2015.

(2.) Panditrao (deceased) was in the service of Police Department. He died on 29/9/2008. Deceased Panditrao had married Jyoti (respondent No.2) in the year 1989. Respondents No.3 to 5 are the children born of the said wedlock. Respondent No.6 is the mother of the deceased Panditrao. During the subsistence of his first marriage with Jyoti, Panditrao married the applicant on 17/12/2003. A daughter, Padmashree was born of the said marriage. On the demise of Panditrao, the applicant and her daughter Padmashree on one hand and the respondents No.2 to 6 on the other filed aforesaid two applications for grant of succession certificate to receive retiral benefits, inclusive of pension. Both the applications were heard together and decided by common judgment and order dated 9/10/2015. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division granted succession certificate in favour of respondents No.2 to 6 and Padmashree (applicant No.2 in MARJI No.72/2014) to receive amount of gratuity, provident fund and other service benefits. The respondent No.2 Jyoti has been held to be entitled to receive pensionery benefits to the exclusion of all other claimants. In view of learned Judge, the applicant - Seema married the deceased during subsistence of his marriage with respondent No.2 Jyoti. The applicant did not have a status of a wife of Panditrao and that of his widow on his demise and, therefore, not entitled to succeed any of the estate/ property including retiral benefits of the deceased. The appellate Court has confirmed the said finding.

(3.) Shri A.D. Ostwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that, with the consent of respondent No.2 Jyoti the applicant had married Panditrao. Since the day of her marriage till Panditrao breathed his last, the applicant had all along been residing with him. A daughter - Padmashree was born of the said marriage. In view of Rule 116(6) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short the Pension Rules), in case of there being more than one widow of the deceased employee, all such widows would be entitled to share pension equally. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the following authorities :-