Judgement M.SHARMA,J.:-This revision petition is arising against the judgment and order dated 29-6-91 passed by the District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in succession certificate Misc. Case No. 43(T)/86. After the demise of her husband this present revision petitioner filed an application for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the death of her late husband John Oris Foster Blah on 30-5-86 in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner of East Khasi Hills, Shillong. The husband of the revision petitioner died on 8-4-86. It is alleged that the opposite party who claimed to be the wife of the deceased filed an application for Succession Certificate on 29-5-86 in the Court of the District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Mills, Shillong. Subsequently, records of the case filed before the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner has been called upon by the District Judge and both the cases were amalgamated and it was registered as Misc. Case No.43(7)/86. After hearing both the parties the learned District Judge issued Succession Certificate in favour of the revision petitioner and the opposite party as successor wives of the deceased. Being aggrieved the present revision petitioner has filed this revision petition. 2. Revision petitioner claims that she is the legally married wife of the deceased and in support of the marriage she produced the marriage certificate, which is enclosed as Annexure A to this revision petition (exhibits before the lower Court). It is further contended that this marriage was never dissolved at the instance of either by the petitioner or by the deceased husband of the petitioner during his lifetime and that till the death of the husband the marriage existed. 3. The respondents claim is that she is the wife of the deceased late John Dris Foster Blah. The petitioner is the deserted wife of deceased husband. The petitioner deserted late foster Blah in 1967 and since then the late Foster Blah was living with the respondent opposite party as husband and wife and 4 children has been born out of this cohabitation. The evidence on record shows that 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent And 3 witnesses from the side of the petitioner in the trial. 4. The evidence on record shows that 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent And 3 witnesses from the side of the petitioner in the trial. 4. The main point for consideration before this Court whether the revision petitioner is legally married wife of the deceased late Blah and whether the respondent obtained the status of legally married wife under the Christian Marriage Act or under the Customary Laws as followed by the parties in the dispute. 5. P.W. 1 Ka Baslida Blah is the eldest sister of late Blah. She admitted that revision petitioner is the first wife married under the Christian Marriage Act. Her further evidence was that late Blah driven out the revision petitioner in 1967 and since then both late Blah and the respondent were living as husband and wife. There is no evidence that any marriage took place between late Blah and the respondent..... Though they have 4 children out of their cohabitation. P.W. 2 is Mr. Kharteng, the Paster of Seven Day Adventist. His evidence is that both the respondent and the deceased Blah lived together as husband and wife. No marriage was proved by this witness. P.W.3 is the respondent she also supported the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding her long cohabitation/husband and wife with late Blah. She also admitted that revision petitioner is the first wife of late Blah but she states that by Annexure 10 the revision petitioner gave her consent to the dissolution of the marriage with Blah. It is also the evidence on record that revision petitioner denied the existence of Ext. 10 which is the alleged declaration by her (revision petitioner). The revision petitioner did not admit the execution of such document which has been shown as Ext. 10 in the trial Court. P.W.4 is one Mr. Freegrada who is the Secretary of Nazarath Hospital in which late Blah undergoing treatment and died. This witness could not say who paid the bill of the hospital. He could not say anything. It is the admitted position that the respondent late Blah cannot get married as prohibited by the custom. Late Blah belonged to Blah clan and the respondent belonged to Thangkhiew plan. Under the customs inter marriage between these two plans is prohibited. This witness could not say who paid the bill of the hospital. He could not say anything. It is the admitted position that the respondent late Blah cannot get married as prohibited by the custom. Late Blah belonged to Blah clan and the respondent belonged to Thangkhiew plan. Under the customs inter marriage between these two plans is prohibited. In that case the status of the respondent is the status who has no right to be inherited to the property of the husband. Even the children from such marriage are not entitled to claim inheritance of the deceased. 6. Evidence on record shows that the revision petitioner is the legally married wife of late Blah. Marriage was solemnised under the Christian Marriage Act, Annexure A supports the claim of the revision petitioner as the legally married wife of late Blah. For the dissolution of marriage of the parties under the Christian Marriage Act has to be sought under the Indian Divorce Act. A marriage is dissolved under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. For that application for dissolution of marriage has to be filed by either of the parties to the marriage and under Section 17 the marriage has to be dissolved by the Special Bench of the High Court. From the records it appears that there was no such dissolution of marriage under the Indian Divorce Act. Ext. 10 cannot be a document for dissolution of marriage as it is not given by any authority under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 7-8. The trial Court is wrong in issuing the Succession Certificate to both the wives. Admittedly, late Blah is a Govt. servant and in that case the provisions of Meghalaya Services (Pension Rules) 1983 is applicable. Rule 48 provides as follows: "48(1). Family for the purpose of rules in this Section will include the following relatives of the officers. (a) Wife in the case of male officer. (c) Minor sons. (d) Unmarried minor daughters ........." In Rule 48(v) reads as follows. Note- In case where there are two or more widows pensions will be payable to the eldest surviving widow. On her death it will be payable to the surviving widow, if any. The term eldest would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. (III). (c) Minor sons. (d) Unmarried minor daughters ........." In Rule 48(v) reads as follows. Note- In case where there are two or more widows pensions will be payable to the eldest surviving widow. On her death it will be payable to the surviving widow, if any. The term eldest would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. (III). Pension awarded under the rules in this Section will not be payable to more than one member of an officers family at the same time. It will be first be admissible to the widow / widower and thereafter to the minor Children." 9. In view of the above discussion the Judgment of the District Judge is set aside and the revision.....petitioner is declared as the legally married wife of late Slah and as such she is entitled to obtain Succession Certificate in her favour. In the result the revision petition is allowed. 10. S.BARMAN ROY, J . :- I agree. Order accordingly.