FRESHMI D. MOMIN Vs. SWELLISH M. SANGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who is stated to be the widow of one (L) Lookingbirth M. Marak, an employee of Irrigation Department, Government of Meghalaya is before this Court by the instant appeal under Rule 3 of the Meghalaya High Court Jurisdiction over District Council Court Order, 2014 read with Rule 6 and Sec. 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1985. In a short compass, the appellant is aggrieved with the rejection of her application for revocation of Succession Certificate granted on 9/6/2015 in favour of the respondent. The grounds for challenge as indicated in the memo of appeal, is that the Succession Certificate had been obtained by suppression of material of facts, and that the evidence on record indicated that the appellant was entitled to the Succession, as she and the deceased employee had minor children born out of their cohabitation. The further ground taken is that the impugned order was passed in total violation of Garo Customary law.

(2.) The learned Court below by judgment and order dtd. 23/7/2019, after examining witnesses and considering the law as prevalent came to a finding that sufficient cause had not been made out to recall the earlier order dtd. 9/6/2015, and accordingly dismissed the application for revocation.

(3.) Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the Court below had fallen in error, in dismissing the revocation application, as it failed to consider the fact that the appellant was the second wife of the deceased employee having two issues who are still minors. She submits that if due consideration had been given to this aspect, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent was the first legally married wife, the appellant and her children were at least entitled to a certain percentage of the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. In support of her submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238 (Vidhyadhari and Ors v. Sukhrana Bai and Ors.), wherein she submits it has been held that the children born out of the second union though the second marriage itself may be void, would be entitled to some benefit.