ANJALI DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called, 'the Code of Civil Procedure'), the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff in the Title Suit No. 17 of 2000 and Respondent No. 1 in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2002, has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 12-9-2003 and 16-9-2003, respectively passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2002.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned State counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the Respondent No. 4. None appears for the Respondent No. 5.

(3.) The Plaintiff Smt. Anjali Debnath is the widow of late Suresh Chandra Debnath. Her husband who was a State Government employee died on 16-3-88 leaving behind the Plaintiff and one daughter, namely, Ms Mousumi Debnath as his legal heirs. After the death of Sri Suresh Chandra Debnath, a proposal for family pension was submitted and the same was granted in favour of the Plaintiff with effect from 14-6-2008 and accordingly, the Plaintiff continued to draw her family pension, granted by the office of the Accountant General i.e the Defendant-Respondent No. 4 upto 27-10-1992, through the Udaipur Treasury. After the death of her said husband, the Respondent No. 5 made a proposal to marry the Plaintiff and as agreed to by the Plaintiff, their marriage was solemnized, before the Goddess Kali at Matabari, Tripura Sundari Temple, by exchange of garlands. After this marriage, the said couple lived as husband and wife for about one and a half years, the Plaintiff informed the Treasury Officer, South Tripura, Udaipur i.e the Respondent No. 3 about the said marriage and the said authority stopped the family pension with effect from 28-10-92. The Respondent No. 5 i.e the second husband of the Plaintiff, after staying with the Plaintiff for about one and a half years, left her in the month of August, 1994 and since then, he did not join the Plaintiff. On 2-2-98, upon enquiry, the Plaintiff came to know, from the Defendant No. 5, that he had already married another lady as per Hindu rituals and that out of the said wedlock children were born to them. He also refused to treat the Plaintiff as his wife, on the ground that their marriage was not performed as per Hindu rites and customs and, thus, the Plaintiff came to know that her marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was not a marriage in the eye of law and for that the Respondent No. 5 was not her legally married husband. In view of the above, according to the Plaintiff, as she, after the death of her husband who was a Government employee, did not enter into any legal marriage and the Respondent No. 5 also declined to accept her as his wife, was entitled to get family pension as the widow of late Suresh Chandra Debnath aforesaid, but the authority declined to release the family pension with effect from 28-10-92, on the ground that she had re-married the Respondent No. 5.