In a recent legal ruling, the Allahabad High Court addressed a contentious dispute over family pension entitlement following the demise of a government employee.
The court, comprising Justice Ashtvani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, meticulously examined the intricacies of the case to deliver a verdict.
The dispute stemmed from the claim made by Rajni Rani, asserting her entitlement to family pension benefits as the later wife of the deceased employee. Bhojraj Singh. However, the court meticulously dissected the facts and legal provisions to render its decision.
The court scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the marriage of Bhojraj Singh and Usha Devi, noting that while Rajni Ram contended that the previous marriage had been dissolved through a compromise under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). no decree of divorce had been obtained from a competent court. This crucial legal aspect formed the cornerstone of the court’s ruling.
In its deliberation, the court emphasized. “Tlie scope of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is limited, i.e., with regard to the determination of the amount of maintenance. Even with the consent of the parties, the jurisdiction of the concerned court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be expanded so as to concede the power with such a court to pass a decree of divorce.n
Furthermore, the court underscored the significance of adhering to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. which govern marriages among Hindus. It elucidated that the dissolution of a marriage under this Act must be sanctioned by a decree from a competent court, a requirement not fulfilled in this case.Quoting from the judgment, the court elucidated. “The marriage between the parties since is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing of an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of1955.”
Moreover, the court addressed the contention surrounding Usha Devi’s alleged subsequent marriage, noting that without a valid declaration from a competent court, the claim remained unsubstantiated. The absence of legal validation led the court to uphold the rights of the first wife. Rajni Rani, to claim family pension benefits.
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Case Name:Rajni Rani Vs. State Of Up And 10 Others Case No.:SPECIAL APPEAL No. – 56 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi Order dated: 12.03.2024
