SARITA HARGOVIND CHAUWHAN Vs. CHETAN HARGOVIND CHAUWHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 4-4-2007, this Court had issued notice to the respondents and had also put them to notice that the matter would be heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission, as the question involved in this first appeal is a short one.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the controversy in this first appeal are briefly stated as under : the respondents are the minor children of one Shri Hargovind Chauwhan. who was allegedly murdered by the appellant and three others. The Succession case bearing No. 13 of 2003 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through their next friend and Grandmother for grant of succession certificate. The State had registered an offence against the appellant-wife and three others for murdering her husband Hargovind, on 12-6-2002 at General Hospital, Bhandara. It is not in dispute that the Criminal prosecution for offences under sections 452, 326 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the appellant and other co-accused before the Sessions Court at the time of filing of the Succession case. In view of pendency of the Criminal prosecution, it was stated on behalf of the respondents in the application for grant of succession certificate that the appellant-wife of Hargovind Chauwhan, who was also their mother, was disqualified from seeking succession certificate, in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Civil Judge, Senior division, Bhandara, by judgment and order dated 1-10-2005 granted succession certificate in the name of the applicants i. e. Chetan and Priyanka and held that sarita wd/o Hargovind Chauwhan was not entitled to grant of succession certificate, in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court relied on the decisions reported in 1981 Mh. LJ. 659 = AIR 1982 bombay 68 and AIR 1993 Allahabad 143 to record the finding that the widow was not entitled to grant of succession certificate as she had committed the murder of her husband. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court on 1-10-2005 is challenged in the instant first appeal.

(3.) SHRI Muley, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 1-10-2005, by the judgment dated 21-12-2005 the Criminal Court has acquitted the appellant and other accused. Since, the court found that there was no evidence worth the name to bring home the charge under sections 452, 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It is necessary to mention that the appellant was accused no. 2 in the Criminal Prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the clear acquittal of the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant was not entitled to seek succession certificate in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. The counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in AIR 1977 Delhi 97 to substantiate the aforesaid submission.