JHUNU ALIAS CHUNI TANTI Vs. KISHORE TANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT and decree passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela dated May 15, 1999 and August 2, 1999 respectively declaring Respondent No. 1 to be the legally married wife of late Puranlal Tanti are under challenge in this Appeal.

(2.) THE essential facts leading to this Appeal are as follows: The case has suffered a chequered career. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff in the Original Suit before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela claimed to be the wife of late Puranlal Tanti. It has been averred in the plaint that her marriage with Puranlal was solemnised under Hindu Vedic rituals and ceremonies in the year, 1982 at the parental abode of the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 at Barasad in the district of Sambalpur. Immediately following such marriage it was consummated at Bondamunda in the district of Sundargarh. Out of their lawful wedlock a daughter named Goumi Tanti was born, but unfortunately she expired in the year 1989. Respondent No. 1's husband was working as a Box carrier in the South Eastern Railway at Bondamunda and expired while in service on October 6, 1990. It is further averred by the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 that Defendant No. 1 who is the Appellant in this case was the widow of Late Kartik Tanti, the younger brother of her husband Puranlal. Kartik Tanti expired in 1990. The Appellant was working as a maid servant in the houses of Railway Officers at Chakradharpur. It is the case of the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 that immediately after the death of her husband since she could not take any steps to lay claim for the death-cum-retirement benefit of her husband being an illiterate lady, the Appellant in collusion with the Railway staff posing herself to be the widow of Puranlal obtained a succession certificate from a Court at Bihar by impersonating herself to be his widow and received Rs. 10,000/- from out of service benefits of late Puranlal Tanti. When the plaintiff- Respondent No. 1 came to know the mischief played by the Appellant, she filed the suit seeking a declaration that she is the widow of Late Puranlal and, therefore, is entitled to all the benefits accrued to her husband under death-cum-retirement scheme.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 who is the Appellant in this case, while controverting all the allegations of the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 has asserted that she had married Late Puranlal Tanti according to Hindu custom and ritual on July 12, 1986 at Chakradharpur and immediately thereafter the marriage was consummated. Out of their wedlock a male child, namely, Kunu Tanti was born in 1989. Late Puranlal Tanti had acknowledged the Appellant to be his wife and Kunu as his son in Medical Card and other related documents maintained by the Railways. Since the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 was not related to Puranlal Tanti in any manner the Appellant Defendant No. 1 was rightly granted a Succession Certificate by the District Judge, Singhbhum. West at Chainbasa in succession Certificate Case No. 7 of 1992 after inviting due objections from the relatives and the public in general. Since the Appellant was entitled to receive the provident fund dues of her late husband as his widow a part of the amount was paid to her.