Sm t Parvat i Devi v. Governm ent of I ndia and ot hers

t o t he legally wedded first wife of lat e Havaldar Dev Singh Rawat . 1

2. Appellant has challenged j udgm ent t he rendered by learned Fam ily Court on following grounds: 1) That plaint iff ( respondent no.1) failed t o lead any evidence in support of her cont ent ion t hat she was m arried t o lat e Dev Singh Rawat in t he year 1983, yet Fam ily Court by com plet ely overlooking t he said aspect decreed her suit ; 2) I n her st at em ent , plaint iff ( respondent no.1) st at ed 05.01.1972, which shows t hat , she was about 11 years of age at t he t im e of her alleged m arriage; and t hat her dat e of birt h fam ily Court 3) The it s j urisdict ion by direct ing t he em ployer t o pay Fam ily Pension of lat e Dev Singh Rawat t o plaint iff ( respondent no.1) . overst epped

3. Plaint of t he suit filed by respondent No.1 is enclosed as Annexure- 1 t o t he I nt erim Relief Applicat ion filed by appellant . I n para 2 of t he plaint , it is m ent ioned t hat m arriage bet ween plaint iff and lat e Dev Singh Rawat was solem nized on 21.06.1983 as per Hindu rit es in village Dadholi ( Thapla) , Pat t i Malla Dora, Tehsil Dwarahat , Dist rict Alm ora.

4. I n para 6 t o 9 of t he plaint , plaint iff referred t o t he applicat ion seeking m aint enance filed by her and t he am ount which was paid as m aint enance by lat e Dev Singh Rawat t o her, pursuant t o order passed by Judicial Magist rat e, Ranikhet .

5. I n para 11 of t he plaint , it was m ent ioned t hat lat e Havaldar Dev Singh Rawat passed away on

04.07.2009, at his nat ive village Kudoli ( Thapla) . 2

6. I n para 18 of t he plaint , it was st at ed t hat Senior Records Officer, Records Kum aon Regim ent al Cent re, in reply t o legal not ice sent on behalf of plaint iff inform ed t hat nam e of som e ot her lady, nam ely, Soni Rawat @ Saroj ini Devi is m ent ioned in t he records available wit h t he Arm y, as legally wedded wife of lat e Havaldar Dev Singh Rawat .

7. Appellant m ade following st at em ent in reply t o averm ent m ade in para 1 and 2 of t he plaint . “ 1) That t he cont ent s of para 1 of t he plaint are denied for want of knowledge t o t he ext ent t hey pert ain t o t he ancest ry of t he Plaint iff. The averm ent pert aining t o t he dem ise of her “ husband” is denied wit h t he ut m ost vehem ence. The Plaint iff is put t o st rict proof of her having ever being m arried t o t he lat e Dev Singh Rawat . 2) That cont ent s of para 2 of t he plaint are false, frivolous, concoct ed and denied m ost v ehem ent ly. I t is specifically denied t he Plaint iff ever got t hat m arried t o lat e Dev Singh Rawat in t he presence of her parent s and relat ives at t he place averred in t he para under reply. The Plaint iff is put t o st rict proof of t he said averm ent s.”

8. I n para 9 of t he writ t en st at em ent , appellant cont ended t hat she is t he only legally wedded wife of lat e Dev Singh Rawat even as per t he service records.

9. Based on t he pleadings, learned Fam ily Court fram ed following six issues: 1) Whet her plaint iff t he only legally wedded wife of lat e Dev Singh Rawat ? I f yes t hen it s effect ? 3 2) Whet her m arriage of lat e Dev Singh Rawat wit h defendant no.2, is void? I f yes t hen it s effect ? 3) Whet her plaint iff is ent it led t o service pension of lat e Dev Singh Rawat ? I f yes t hen it s effect ? 4) Whet her Fam ily Court has j urisdict ion t o hear t he m at t er? 5) Whet her plaint iff has paid sufficient court fees? 6) Relief, if any, which can be grant ed?

10. All t he aforesaid issues were decided favour of plaint iff and against defendant no.2/ appellant . For deciding issue no.1 in favour of plaint iff and against defendant no.2/ appellant , learned Fam ily Court relied upon st at em ent m ade by Dev Singh Rawat before Munsif Magist rat e, Ranikhet in Misc. Crim inal Case No.17 of 1993 “ Parvat i Rawat Vs. Dev Singh” filed under Sect ion 125 Cr.P.C. I n his st at em ent before Munsif Magist rat e, in t he aforesaid proceedings, Dev Singh Rawat adm it t ed t hat applicant ( Parvat i Devi) is his legally wedded wife. Learned Fam ily Court also t ook not e of t he fact t hat in t he case filed by respondent no.1 claim ing m aint enance, initially ₹500/- per m ont h was grant ed as m aint enance t o respondent no.1, however, subsequent ly on her applicat ion filed under Sect ion 127 Cr.P.C., t he am ount of m aint enance was increased to ₹1,000/- per m ont h vide order dat ed

27.09.2008.

11. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat even t hough Dev Singh Rawat in his st at em ent adm it t ed fact um of his m arriage wit h respondent no.1, 4 however, t here was no evidence regarding dat e of m arriage bet ween Dev Singh Rawat and Parvat i Devi ( plaint iff) . He subm it s t hat Parvat i Devi, in her deposit ion before t he Fam ily Court , st at ed t hat her dat e of birt h is 05.01.1972, t herefore, in 1983 when she claim s t o have m arried t o Dev Singh Rawat , she was only 11 years of age. Thus, he subm it s t hat claim m ade by Parvat i Devi t hat she m arried Dev Singh in 1983 cannot be accept ed.

12. Per cont ra, Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 subm it s t hat in paragraph no.2 of t he plaint , his client not only st at ed t hat she is legally wedded wife of Dev Singh but dat e of her m arriage wit h Dev Singh Rawat was also indicat ed. He subm it s t hat appellant in her writ t en st at em ent denied t he assert ion regarding m arriage and st at ed t hat plaint iff is put t o st rict proof of averm ent regarding m arriage, however, in view of adm ission m ade by Dev Singh Rawat in m aint enance proceedings before Munsif Magist rat e, Ranikhet , t he st at em ent m ade by appellant in her writ t en st at em ent get s belied and t hus, not only t he fact um of m arriage but also t he dat e of m arriage is proved. He furt her subm it s t hat appellant in her Exam inat ion- in- Chief changed her st and and st at ed t hat m arriage of respondent no.1 wit h Lat e Dev Singh Rawat was not legal and furt her t hat appellant is t he first wife of Lat e Shri Dev Singh.

13. The cont ent ion m ade by learned counsel for t he appellant t hat in t he absence of evidence regarding dat e of m arriage, t he finding ret urned on issue No. 1 is perverse, cannot be accept ed. Dev Singh Rawat was 5 exam ined as wit ness before Munsif Magist rat e, Ranikhet in m aint enance proceedings and he conceded t hat Parvat i Devi ( respondent No. 1) is his legally wedded wife. Dev Singh Rawat could have t aken a st and t hat he was earlier m arried t o t he appellant t herefore his m arriage wit h Parvat i Devi is not legal; however, he did not t ake t hat plea. Dev Singh Rawat did not challenge t he order passed in m aint enance proceedings and also paid m aint enance t o respondent No. 1. I n view of t he adm ission m ade by Dev Singh Rawat before Munsif Magist rat e, Ranikhet t hat respondent No. 1 is his legally wedded wife, t he cont ent ion raised on behalf of appellant is devoid of m erit .

14. The finding ret urned by learned Fam ily Court on issue no.1 t hus cannot be fault ed.

15. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi furt her subm it s t hat since m arriage of Parvat i Devi wit h Dev Singh was solem nized in 1983 and Dev Singh m arried wit h appellant during lifet im e of Parvat i Devi,

26.12.1990, t herefore, in view of provision cont ained in Sect ion 5( i) of Hindu Marriage Act , m arriage of Saroj ni Devi @ Soni Rawat ( appellant ) wit h Dev Singh is void. He t hus subm it s t hat any int erference wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent and decree passed by learned Fam ily Court would not be warrant ed.

16. Per cont ra, learned counsel for appellant subm it s t hat finding on quest ion of j urisdict ion is not correct as Fam ily Court does not have j urisdict ion t o direct t he em ployer t o pay fam ily pension t o t he plaint iff in proceedings under Fam ily Court s Act . 6

17. I n Paragraph No.12 of im pugned t he j udgm ent , learned Fam ily Court referred t o det erm inat ion on t he quest ion of j urisdict ion m ade by learned Senior Civil Judge, Alm ora, vide order dat ed

07.12.2022, as t he Suit was originally filed before Civil Judge and upon creat ion of Fam ily Court in Dist rict Alm ora, t he Suit was t ransferred t o t he Fam ily Court . Learned Civil Judge held t hat t he issue as t o which of t he t wo wom en claim ing t o be legally wedded wife of lat e Dev Singh Rawat , is ent it led t o fam ily pension is cognizable by Fam ily Court . We find no infirm it y in t he det erm inat ion m ade on t he quest ion of j urisdict ion.

18. Sect ion 7 of Fam ily Court s Act confers upon Fam ily Court t he ent ire j urisdict ion exercisable by any dist rict court or any subordinat e civil court in respect of suit s and proceedings of t he nat ure referred t o in t he Explanat ion. A Fam ily Court t hus can decide on a disput e regarding fam ily pension bet ween t wo wom en, especially if it involves issues relat ed t o m arriage, divorce or m aint enance, which are t ypically wit hin t he purview of Fam ily Court s. These Court s are designed t o handle fam ily relat ed m at t ers and disput e over fam ily pension, especially t hose connect ed t o m arit al st at us or fam ily relat ionships, fall under t heir j urisdict ion.

19. I n case t wo or m ore wom en st ake claim for fam ily pension of a deceased em ployee, t hen such disput e can be decided only by a fam ily Court as t he Court will have t o det erm ine as t o which of t he claim ant s is legally wedded wife. Explanat ion t o Sect ion 7 of Fam ily Court s Act enum erat es t he different suit s and proceedings over which Fam ily Court will have 7 j urisdict ion. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 will fall under clause ( b) and clause ( c) t o t he explanat ion of Sect ion 7 of t he Act .

20. Since t here was a disput e bet ween t wo wom en who were claim ing t o be wife of lat e Dev Singh Rawat , and validit y of t heir m arriage can only be decided by a Fam ily Court , t herefore, t he Fam ily Court will have incident al power t o issue direct ion t o t he em ployer t o pay fam ily pension t o t he one who is found t o be legally m arried wit h t he deceased. Fam ily pension is propert y and Fam ily Court can very well decide propert y right s. Asking t he part y whose m arriage was declared t o be valid t o approach som e ot her j udicial for seeking fam ily pension would not only am ount t o t ravest y of j ust ice but it would also be against public policy, as public policy dem ands t hat no one should be vexed t wice and all t he issues should be decided in one suit .

21. Thus, we do not find any infirm it y in t he im pugned j udgm ent , which m ay warrant int erference. Thus, t he appeal fails and t he sam e is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 06.08.2025 SS SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1 885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C4226136 1AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH 8