MUSMAT NILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, learned counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Kumar Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent no.9, Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the State and also perused the materials available on record meticulously.

(2.) The petitioner is claiming herself to be wife of deceased Pradeep Mistri, who superannuated on 28/2/2010 while working as Helper in the Minor Irrigation Division, Patna and died on 2/5/2013, filed the present writ application seeking direction to the respondents to grant her full family pension and also assailed the letter dtd. 28/3/2016, issued by the Treasury Officer, Patna (Collectorate) by which it has been informed that since the name of Sona Devi mentioned as wife of Pradeep Mistri in the pension paper of the deceased employee, the family pension is being paid to her after making deduction of Rs.4,000.00from the payment of Sona Devi. She further prayed, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to sanction the due 3rd ACP to her husband w.e.f. 1/1/2009 with all consequential benefits, apart from due GPF for the period the deceased employee had worked under the Work Charge Establishment. It is also prayed that petitioner being first wife of the employee is entitled to receive 100% family pension in view of ratio laid down by this Court in Most. Tara Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (C.W.J.C. No. 15986 of 2016).

(3.) It is vehemently contended that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with late Pradeep Mistri on 27/6/1986, as per the Hindu rituals and from their wedlock five children were born. Both the husband and the wife remained together for a pretty long time. However, subsequently, petitioner's husband became habitual drunkard due to which he came in contact with a married woman, namely, Sona Devi @ Sunaina Devi, the respondent no.9 herein. After some time, the petitioner's husband left taking care of the petitioner and the children, which resulted into filing of Maintenance Case No. 211(M) of 2008 against the deceased employee before the learned Family Court, Patna, which was allowed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna and after considering the income of the husband of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.4,000.00 per month was allowed for maintenance of the petitioner and her children from the date of order, the copy of which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-4 to the writ application.