High Court · 2025

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23508 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Anjum Ara And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Km. Vishwa Mohini,Devashish Bhatt,Vimal Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Dwivedi,Rahul Shukla,Rajiv Shukla,Uday Veer Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard Km. Vishwa Mohini, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent No.1, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Sri Amit Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 22.06.2017 and the Pension Payment Order dated 20.05.2016, copies of which are Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition.

3. The facts of the case have already been set forth in the order dated 25.07.2025. For the sake of this, relevant extract of the order dated 25.07.2025 is reproduced below :- "1. Heard.

2. The petitioners claims herself to be the first wife of the deceased employee namely Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui who was working as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School in Barabanki, retired on 30.06.2003 and died on 21.01.2007 is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 22.06.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition and the pension payment order dated 02.05.2016, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition.

3. Vide order dated 22.06.2017 the petitioners claim for pension has been rejected. Vide the pension payment order dated 20.05.2016 pension has been sanctioned to respondent no 3.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that at no stretch of time the petitioner no. 1 was ever divorced by Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui and consequently she continues to be the wife of the deceased employee and as such there cannot be any occasion for grant of family pension to respondent no. 3 who purports herself to be the legally wedded wife of Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

5. The petitioner claims herself to be the wife on the basis of the order passed by competent court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 28.01.1989 (page 26) which was allegedly filed by the petitioner claiming maintenance against Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui and learned court had directed for payment of maintenance to the petitioner and it is claimed that the said maintenance was paid by Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui right up to his death and thus it contended that once the competent court of law under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has recorded the petitioner no. 1 as wife of Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui as such it is the petitioner who is entitled for pension and other retiral dues of the deceased employee. "

4. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the petitioner No.1 claims herself to be legally wedded wife of Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

5. As indicated above, the claim is based on an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 28.01.1989, whereby maintenance had been granted by the competent court in favour of the petitioner No.1 against Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

6. The Court had summoned the records, which have been produced by Dr. Udaiveer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, and have been perused by this Court.

7. From perusal of the record, it emerges that Smt. Sufia Kamal @ Naushaba, i.e., respondent No.3 and one Ms. Fozia Kamar, a daughter, have been indicated as the members of the family in the service records. There is also an application on record dated 30.08.2003 for the purpose of grant of family pension, which also indicates the names of Smt. Sufia Kamal and Ms. Fozia Kamar as the family members of the deceased-employee.

8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once, in terms of the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the competent court, the petitioner No.1 has been treated to be a wife and even if the respondent No.3 has been indicated in the service record to be the wife, yet it is the petitioner No.1 who would be entitled for the family pension and other retiral dues of the deceased employee and not respondent No.3.

9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has been placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.L. Bhatia and Union of India and another : (1999) 5 SCC 237 as well as judgments of High Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, First, U.P. Electricity Board, Allahabad and another : (2001) 1 UPLBEC 869, Mustt Junufa Bibi vs. Mustt Padma Begum : AIR Online 2022 GAU 141 and Smt. Vimla Devi and State of U.P. and 4 Others : Neautral Citation No.-2022:AHC:157955 to contend that in the said judgments, it has been held that there cannot be any nomination against the Service Rules and that the wife would be entitled to be paid the family pension even if the name of some other nominee finds place in the service record.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, it emerges that the petitioner No.1 claims herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased-employee. Despite her name not being indicated in the service records as a wife, yet the plank of her claim is the order of the competent court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance has been granted to the petitioner No.1 by the said employee, Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

11. What would be the effect of an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another : AIR 1999 SC 3348 and also in the case of Kamala and Ors. vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar : (2019) 11 SCC 491, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a Civil Suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurthinam, {1971 (3) SCC 923} observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (Similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties."

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Sethurathiuam Pillai vs. Barbara : (1971) 3 SCC 923 has also held that an order passed under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceedings between the parties.

13. Considering the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy (supra) as well as S. Sethurathiuam Pillai (supra), it is, thus, apparent that an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is only an order passed in summary proceedings, which would not finally determine that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui so as to entail her to be granted family pension or other retiral dues, more particularly when, from the service records, it is respondent No.3 whose name is entered as a family member and has also been indicated to be the wife. Thus, the aforesaid claim of the petitioner No.1 based on the order of the competent court passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will not be a determinative factor so as to conclude that petitioner No.1 is a legally wedded wife of Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

14. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are all on the point of nomination, regarding which, there cannot be any dispute. In the instant case, it is not a question of respondent No.3 being nominated; rather, it is a case in which the service records indicate that respondent No.3 is the wife of the concerned employee and thus the aforesaid judgments would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

16. Records have been perused and returned back.

17. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner No.1 from filing appropriate proceedings in appropriate court for the purpose of she being declared as the wife/widow of the deceased employee. Order Date :- 7.8.2025/Shubhankar (Abdul Moin, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23508 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Anjum Ara And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Km. Vishwa Mohini,Devashish Bhatt,Vimal Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Dwivedi,Rahul Shukla,Rajiv Shukla,Uday Veer Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard Km. Vishwa Mohini, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent No.1, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Sri Amit Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 22.06.2017 and the Pension Payment Order dated 20.05.2016, copies of which are Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition.

3. The facts of the case have already been set forth in the order dated 25.07.2025. For the sake of this, relevant extract of the order dated 25.07.2025 is reproduced below :- "1. Heard.

2. The petitioners claims herself to be the first wife of the deceased employee namely Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui who was working as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School in Barabanki, retired on 30.06.2003 and died on 21.01.2007 is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 22.06.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition and the pension payment order dated 02.05.2016, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition.

3. Vide order dated 22.06.2017 the petitioners claim for pension has been rejected. Vide the pension payment order dated 20.05.2016 pension has been sanctioned to respondent no 3.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that at no stretch of time the petitioner no. 1 was ever divorced by Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui and consequently she continues to be the wife of the deceased employee and as such there cannot be any occasion for grant of family pension to respondent no. 3 who purports herself to be the legally wedded wife of Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

5. The petitioner claims herself to be the wife on the basis of the order passed by competent court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 28.01.1989 (page 26) which was allegedly filed by the petitioner claiming maintenance against Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui and learned court had directed for payment of maintenance to the petitioner and it is claimed that the said maintenance was paid by Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui right up to his death and thus it contended that once the competent court of law under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has recorded the petitioner no. 1 as wife of Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui as such it is the petitioner who is entitled for pension and other retiral dues of the deceased employee. "

4. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the petitioner No.1 claims herself to be legally wedded wife of Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

5. As indicated above, the claim is based on an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 28.01.1989, whereby maintenance had been granted by the competent court in favour of the petitioner No.1 against Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

6. The Court had summoned the records, which have been produced by Dr. Udaiveer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, and have been perused by this Court.

7. From perusal of the record, it emerges that Smt. Sufia Kamal @ Naushaba, i.e., respondent No.3 and one Ms. Fozia Kamar, a daughter, have been indicated as the members of the family in the service records. There is also an application on record dated 30.08.2003 for the purpose of grant of family pension, which also indicates the names of Smt. Sufia Kamal and Ms. Fozia Kamar as the family members of the deceased-employee.

8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once, in terms of the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the competent court, the petitioner No.1 has been treated to be a wife and even if the respondent No.3 has been indicated in the service record to be the wife, yet it is the petitioner No.1 who would be entitled for the family pension and other retiral dues of the deceased employee and not respondent No.3.

9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has been placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.L. Bhatia and Union of India and another : (1999) 5 SCC 237 as well as judgments of High Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, First, U.P. Electricity Board, Allahabad and another : (2001) 1 UPLBEC 869, Mustt Junufa Bibi vs. Mustt Padma Begum : AIR Online 2022 GAU 141 and Smt. Vimla Devi and State of U.P. and 4 Others : Neautral Citation No.-2022:AHC:157955 to contend that in the said judgments, it has been held that there cannot be any nomination against the Service Rules and that the wife would be entitled to be paid the family pension even if the name of some other nominee finds place in the service record.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, it emerges that the petitioner No.1 claims herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased-employee. Despite her name not being indicated in the service records as a wife, yet the plank of her claim is the order of the competent court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance has been granted to the petitioner No.1 by the said employee, Shri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

11. What would be the effect of an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another : AIR 1999 SC 3348 and also in the case of Kamala and Ors. vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar : (2019) 11 SCC 491, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a Civil Suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurthinam, {1971 (3) SCC 923} observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (Similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties."

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Sethurathiuam Pillai vs. Barbara : (1971) 3 SCC 923 has also held that an order passed under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceedings between the parties.

13. Considering the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy (supra) as well as S. Sethurathiuam Pillai (supra), it is, thus, apparent that an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is only an order passed in summary proceedings, which would not finally determine that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui so as to entail her to be granted family pension or other retiral dues, more particularly when, from the service records, it is respondent No.3 whose name is entered as a family member and has also been indicated to be the wife. Thus, the aforesaid claim of the petitioner No.1 based on the order of the competent court passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will not be a determinative factor so as to conclude that petitioner No.1 is a legally wedded wife of Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui.

14. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are all on the point of nomination, regarding which, there cannot be any dispute. In the instant case, it is not a question of respondent No.3 being nominated; rather, it is a case in which the service records indicate that respondent No.3 is the wife of the concerned employee and thus the aforesaid judgments would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

16. Records have been perused and returned back.

17. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner No.1 from filing appropriate proceedings in appropriate court for the purpose of she being declared as the wife/widow of the deceased employee. Order Date :- 7.8.2025/Shubhankar (Abdul Moin, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench