Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 849 (GAU)

Rasna Dutta v. State of Assam

2018-05-22

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner Also heard Mr. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.4 whereas Mr. M.K. Mori, learned counsel appears for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has made a claim for grant of family pension and other pensionary benefits due to the death of one Prabin Datta, Inspector of Excise on 05.09.2010. 3. The petitioner's case is that she is the wife of the Late Prabin Datta and after the death of her husband on 05.09.2010, the petitioner submitted an application for payment of family pension and other pensionary benefits to the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia, in the year 2014. As the application of the petitioner for payment of family pension and other service benefits of her late husband was not being finalized by the State respondents, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 3608 of 2013. The same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2014, wherein a direction was given to the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The respondent No.5, thereafter filed a review petition No.122 of 2014 in WP (C) No. 3608/2013, on the ground that she was the wife of late the Prabin Datta, with whom she had children. Review Petition No.122 of 2014 was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2016 by holding that no direction had been passed by the Court in WP (C) No. 3608 of 2013 for release of pensionary benefits and other service benefits to the petitioner, but it only directed the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia to consider the petitioner's case. The respondent No.5 was accordingly directed by the Review Court to approach the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia and place her case for consideration, before the said Authority. 5. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the respondent No.5 has also claimed to be the wife of the late Prabin Datta, the payment of pensionary benefits and other service benefits of the late Prabin Datta has not been finalized by the State respondents in favour of the petitioner till date. 6. The counsel for the respondents submit that the dispute is with regard to whether the respondent No.5 or the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the late Prabin Datta. 6. The counsel for the respondents submit that the dispute is with regard to whether the respondent No.5 or the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the late Prabin Datta. As these are disputed questions of facts, the matter should be decided by the Civil Court. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 7. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not allow for more than one living legally wedded wife at a time. Accordingly, the issue of whether the petitioner or the respondent No.5 is the legally wife of the late Prabin Datta will have to be decided by adducing evidence. The question whether the two minor children of respondent No.5 are the children of late Prabin Datta will also have to be proved by the respondent No.5. In that view of the matter, the parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court with their grievance in respect of their claim for payment of pensionary benefits and other service benefits of the late Prabin Datta. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.