BIRMATI ALIAS RAMRATI Vs. BIRENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision is against the order passed to the proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs contending that their father Parkash Chand expired on 18.11.1998. They claim themselves to be the children born to Parkash Chand through his wife Ramrati alias Birmati. The first defendant Birmati, according to the plaintiffs, was the wife of one Ravinder Singh and she had not been married at any time to Parkash Chand. Birmati relied on the ration card and birth certificates of the children-Bhupender, Jitender and Birender in proof of her status as the wife and the trial Court dismissed the petition for injunction. In appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court also took notice of the marriage certificate said to have been issued on earlier marriage on 27.02.2002 showing Birmati as having been married to one Ravinder Singh. The Court said that if all the records have to be seen, the defendant shall not be permitted to withdraw the benefits of pension and other consequential benefits. It is against this order, revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Even if all the documents relied on were to be reckoned, the defendant's status as the widow of Parkash Chand could not have been denied. Parkash Chand died only on 18.11.1998 and the subsequent marriage of Birmati in the year 2002 could not have caused any invalidity to the marriage of Parkash Chand to Birmati. However, if the benefit of pension would require to be examined only in the context of whether she continued to be widow without remarriage, then restraint order passed would have been justified. It could not have been again without reference to any particular pensionary rules that disallow a claim for pension on remarriage of the widow. I am of the view that prima facie the status of the defendant as the wife of Parkash Chand cannot be denied and the relief of injunction, which was issued by the appellate Court, would require to be modified to allow for the second respondent, namely, the employer-General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot, to examine their own pension scheme and if there is any prohibition against the issue of pension to a widow, notwithstanding her remarriage, the payment of pension could be resumed to her and if there is any other bar for claiming pension on remarriage, the same may be considered by the authorities and pass appropriate orders.

(3.) The reference to the status of the first defendant-revision petitioner herein, as a widow of Parkash Chand, is on prima facie consideration on the basis of records before it and they will have no bearing to the final adjudication in suit. Again the observation on Birmati's alleged remarriage is only for the purpose of the petition and it does not amount to proof of acceptance of her alleged remarriage. Both parties are not present before Court and I have passed this order assuming that the suit is still pending. If the suit has already been disposed of, the observations may not have any value.