JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. Pal, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and there is no representation from the substituted respondents No. 3(i) & 3(ii) despite proper notice, when the matter is called out. 2. This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act from the order dated 11.07.2016 delivered in Misc. (Succ.) 4 of 2015 by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. One Narayan Hrishidas died intestate on 08.02.2014. The respondents No. 1 & 2 herein along with the respondent No. 3 instituted an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of the succession certificate in respect of the debt and securities of the deceased person. When the public notice was published in a newspaper called Tripura Darpan, the appellants No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 filed an application for their impleadment claiming that Dipali Hrishi Das was the wife of Narayan Hrishi Das whereas the appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons and daughters of Narayan Hrishi Das. The court for purpose of inquiry impleaded them. But after recording the evidence, by the order dated 11.07.2016 the trial court held that the respondent No. 1 (Belashmani Hrishidas) is the legally married wife of Narayan Hrishidas, since deceased and the respondent No. 2 is their daughter born in their wedlock. In that premises, and on finding that Narayan Hrishidas had nominated Belashmani Hrishidas as his wife, the appellants, the opposite parties in the proceeding being Misc. (Succ.) 4 of 2015 were declared by the said order dated 11.07.2016 that they are not entitled to get any benefit from the debts and securities including pensionary benefits accrued for death of Narayan Hrishidas. From the record, it can be gathered that Narayan Hrishidas was a Government employee (Exbt.4). The trial court has observed as under: “Admittedly, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and OP No. 1 are the actual legal heirs of deceased Narayan Hrishidas. We are, however, not in a position to declare the shares of the parties in the debts left by the deceased being barred vide Section-387 of the Act of 1925. The trial court has observed as under: “Admittedly, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and OP No. 1 are the actual legal heirs of deceased Narayan Hrishidas. We are, however, not in a position to declare the shares of the parties in the debts left by the deceased being barred vide Section-387 of the Act of 1925. But as the deceased left behind only three numbers of survivors as per first Survival Certificate, dated 04.09.2014, giving priority to that documents along with Exbt.8, so they are entitled to get equal share of the service benefits of the deceased as per common parlance. In comparative study of the documents of the contesting parties the documents furnished by op nos. 2 to 5 are not so weighty in comparison to documents furnished by the petitioners.” 4. Having observed thus, it has been held that Belashmani Hrishidas is the legally married wife of deceased Narayan Hrishidas. Finally, on the basis of the documents so produced in the evidence, it has been held that the respondent No. 1 Belashmani Hrishidas, the respondent No. 2 Soma Hrishidas and Suradhani Hrishidas since deceased (the respondent No. 3) are entitled to get 1/3rd share each of debts and securities left by the deceased amounting to Rs. 6,80,577/- (Rs. six lakh eighty thousand five hundred seventy seven). It has been directed to issue the succession certificate following the due process of law. 5. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the said judgment suffers from the complete non-appreciation of evidence recorded by the court below which passed the order dated 11.07.2016. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has demonstrated from the records that the birth certificates of Nayan Hrishidas, Ruma Hrishidas and Rakhal Hrishidas as filed by the impleaded opposite parties, the appellants herein. It is apparent that in those birth certificates, those impleaded opposite parties namely Nayan Hrishidas, Ruma Hrishidas and Rakhal Hrishidas are shown as the sons and daughter of Narayan Hrishidas and there is no challenge against those birth certificates or the status, even not against the survival certificate dated 23.02.2015. 6. However, from the nomination submitted by the deceased employee under Tripura State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1983, it would be apparent that the deceased employee namely Narayan Hrishidas submitted the said nomination in favour of Belashmani Hrishidas as his wife. 6. However, from the nomination submitted by the deceased employee under Tripura State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1983, it would be apparent that the deceased employee namely Narayan Hrishidas submitted the said nomination in favour of Belashmani Hrishidas as his wife. That apart, Belashmani Hrishidas being estranged from Narayan Hrishidas filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. being Misc. 293 of 2009. In the said proceeding, the deceased employee, Narayan Hrishidas was directed to pay the maintenance allowance at Rs. 5000/- per month to Belashmani Hrishidas and her minor daughter. It has been observed in the order dated 01.01.2002 that the maintenance was provided to Bilashmani Hrishidas under the said proceeding drawn up under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The said order remained unchallenged. Therefore, the status of Bilashmani Hrishidas and Soma Hrishidas as the wife and the daughter of Narayan Hrishidas cannot be challenged. More so, the survival certificate as submitted by the appellants, it would be apparent that the names of Bilashmani Hrishidas and Soma Hrishidas have been inserted in one survival certificate respectively as wife and daughter of Narayan Hrishi Das. In the said survival certificate, the name of mother, Suradhani Hrishidas is incorporated. In the other survival certificate dated 23.02.2015, the names of Suradhani Hrishidas, Dipali Hrishidas, Nayan Hrishidas, Ruma Hrishidas and Rakhal Hrishidas are there. After death of Suradhani Hrishidas in the proceeding, Smt. Dipali Hrishidas, Smt. Ruma Hrishidas, Sri Nayan Hrishidas and Sri Rakhal Hrishidas were supposed to added but only her daughters have been incorporated in her place. 7. The question therefore arises whether the marriage between Bilashmani Hrishidas with Narayan Hrishidas or the marriage between Dipali Hrishidas and Narayan Hrishidas is valid one. If one marriage is held valid, which one is liable to be termed as invalid marriage? 8. From the contemporary document including the order dated 22.10.2003 as passed in Misc.124 of 2001 it is apparent that Bilashmani Hrishidas is the legally married wife of the deceased employee namely Narayan Hrishidas and Soma Hrishidas, in view of the documents produced, is the daughter of Narayan Hrishidas and Bilashmani Hrishidas. Dipali Hrishidas is the second wife of Narayan Hrishidas. Suradhani Hrishidas, the mother in law of Bilashmani Hrishidas and Dipali Hrishidas has stated that no marriage was solemnized of his son namely Narayan Hrishidas with Bilashmani Hrishidas. Dipali Hrishidas is the second wife of Narayan Hrishidas. Suradhani Hrishidas, the mother in law of Bilashmani Hrishidas and Dipali Hrishidas has stated that no marriage was solemnized of his son namely Narayan Hrishidas with Bilashmani Hrishidas. However she has categorically stated that the marriage had taken place with Dipali Hrishidas and Narayan Hrishidas. But that statement is not sufficient to overcome the essential conditions of Hindu marriage. It is apparent that the purported marriage of Dipali Hrishidas and Narayan Hrishidas, was solemnized after the marriage of Narayan Hrishidas and Dipali Hrishidas. As such, the marriage of Narayan Hrishidas with Dipali Hrishidas was a marriage in subsistence to the marriage of Narayan Hrishidas and Bilashmani Hrishidas. 9. In terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, none can marry having a spouse living at the time of marriage. If in breach of the said condition of the Hindu marriage any marriage occurs, such marriage is voidable in the eye of law under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such, Dipali Hrishidas cannot be treated as the ‘wife’ within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage and as such Dipali Hrishidas cannot claim any benefit which has accrued for death of Narayan Hrishidas, a Government employee. The debts and securities have been assessed @ Rs. 6,80,577/-. But the children from Dipali Hrishidas will equally be entitled to the estate and assets including the debt and securities of Narayan Hrishidas, since deceased. Hence, the succession certificate as issued can be sustained. However, it is clarified that pension can only be drawn by Bilashmani Hrishidas, none else. But other financial proceeds in the form of leave salary, group insurance and GPF shall be distributed in equal share between Bilashmani Hrishidas, Soma Hrishidas, Nayan Hrishidas, Ruma Hrishidas and Rakhal Hrishidas and notionally among Suradhani Hrishidas equally. Since Suradhani Hrishidas has expired during the proceeding, her share shall be divided between her two daughters namely Kamala Hrishidas and Rama Hrishidas the class-I successors. The succession certificate be issued in terms of the above observation. 10. In the result, the order dated 11.07.2016 is interfered with and modified. 11. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.