URMILA TIWARI Vs. KANTIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the deceased Harendra Nath Tiwari @ Harendra Kumar Tiwari was an employee of Military Engineering Services (M.E.S.) and was posted as Refrigerator Mechanic in the office of Garrison Engineer, Airforce Station, Maharajpura, Gwalior. He was married to Kanti Devi (respondent No. 1) on 30.05.1983, whose name was entered in the office record, as wife of Harendra Nath Tiwari. He died on 19.04.1995.

(2.) After death of Harendra Nath Tiwari, applicants/appellants submitted an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, for grant of probate in respect of the Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 11.04.1995 in favour of appellant No. 1. It is alleged in the application that Kanti Devi, respondent No. 1 separated herself from Harendra Nath after 1 ? years from the date of marriage and, thus, they had separated themselves from each other. Harendra Nath, thereafter married to appellant No. 1 on 19.04.1984, according to Hindu customs. Applicants No. 2 & 3 were born to appellant No. 1 from Harendra Nath. Appellant No. 1 resided with Harendra Nath as his wife, since 1984 which was well within the knowledge of respondent No. 1. Appellant No. 1 made an application for release of service benefits of Harendra Nath in her favour, which was not accepted despite her entitlement. Otherwise also, in view of the Will having been executed in favour of appellant No. 1, she is entitled to service benefits of the deceased. Appellants prayed that probate may be issued in their favour in respect of the Will dated 11.04.1995 executed by the deceased Harendra Nath, during his lifetime.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 submitted her reply refuting thereby the claim of the appellants. She inter-alia stated that she is widow of the deceased. Her marriage with Harendra Nath was not dissolved, at all. It was denied that she separated herself from Harendra Nath. On the contrary, it was stated, in specific, that she has been residing throughout with the in-laws in their native village. It has been denied in the reply that appellant No. 1 was married to Harendra Nath and appellants No. 2 & 3 were born from the relationship of Harendra Nath with appellant No. 1. Alleged Will dated 11.04.1995 has been disputed as a forged and concocted one. It is stated in specific that applicants/appellants are not legally entitled to the service benefits payable to deceased Harendra Nath, and the application for grant of probate is therefore liable to be dismissed.