SIRAZUN NESSA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an important question of law involved in this Writ Appeal, is as to whether the second wife of a Mohammedan employee is entitled to any share in the family pension of her late husband. Having answered the issue in the negative by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.03.2010, passed in W.P(C) No. 2450 of 2007.

(2.) We have heard the argument of Shri A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. The State of Assam (respondents No.1, 5 and 6) were represented by Sri B. Gogoi, Advocate; Agriculture Department (Respondents No.2 and 4) were represented by Sri C. Baruah, learned standing counsel-respondent No.7 i.e. the Branch Manager (sic) United Bank of India as well as the first wife of the deceased, Smti. Anwara Begum (Respondent No.8) did not turn up, despite being notified.

(3.) The facts in a narrow compass are that the appellant had married late Asoddar Ali Tapadar in the year 1971, during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent No.8. As per pleadings in the writ petition, the deceaed had eight children through the first wife and three children through the 2nd wife. Due to some matrimonial discord, the appellant had started living separately from her husband since 1985 and had also filed a case, being MR No. 20/85, seeking maintenance allowance from her husband. The said case culminated in compromise and her husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month towards her own maintenance as well as their children. It was also pleaded in the writ petition that after retirement from service, the deceased submitted an application before the concerned department on 22.09.2005, requesting inclusion of the name of the appellant as a nominee to receive 50% pensionary benefits after his death. It may also be mentioned here that the appellant/ respondent retired from service on 3-1.12.2003 and died on 01.10.2006. Thereafter, both the appellant and the respondent No.8 had staked their claim for retiral benefits, and having learnt that the concerned department is likely to sanction the payment of pension in favour of the first wife (Respondent No.8), she filed the writ petition, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment.