JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Hossain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 6 & 7. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 & 5; Mr. R. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3; Mr. R. Borpuzari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 8 and Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9. 2. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under: “The petitioner herein, namely, Safiran Nessa @ Safijan Nessa, got married to one Lutfur Hussain, since deceased; who was serving as an Assistant Teacher of Pachim Jugijan Adarsha L.P. School, under the then Nagaon district and now Hojai district; way back in the year 1999. As per Shariat rites and rituals, Lutfur Hussain suffered demise on 10.05.2021. The late husband of the petitioner also contracted one marriage with the respondent No. 9 herein, in the year 2003/04, in violation of the Rule 24 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. After the second marriage, the deceased husband used to torture the petitioner, both mentally and physically, without any maintenance. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed one complaint case before the learned JMFC, Nagaon, against her deceased husband, being CR Case No. 481/2001, under Sections 498(A)/406 IPC. The petitioner had also filed a maintenance case before the learned SDJM, Nagaon; seeking maintenance and thereafter, the learned JMFC, Nagaon, vide Judgment, dated 30.07.2004, in connection with CR Case No. 481/2001; convicted the deceased husband of the petitioner and sentenced him; and in the maintenance case, the learned SDJM directed the husband of the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. Thereafter, both the cases were compromised by the petitioner and her late husband, by way of executing compromised deed, dated 14.09.2004; as per request of her deceased husband, with certain terms and conditions. But, the petitioner came to know that her late husband, in the meantime; inducted the name of the respondent No. 9, being his second wife, in the Service Book, LIC Policy etc, as nominee, by replacing the name of the petitioner behind her back. But, the petitioner came to know that her late husband, in the meantime; inducted the name of the respondent No. 9, being his second wife, in the Service Book, LIC Policy etc, as nominee, by replacing the name of the petitioner behind her back. After the demise of the husband of the petitioner on 10.05.2021, the petitioner had filed on representation, requesting the respondent authorities to process the family pension and pay the same to the st petitioner as legally married 1 wife, but surprisingly, the respondent authorities had not paid any heed to the said representation and rather, they are contemplating to process and pay the family pension in favour of the respondent No. 9, on the strength of the altered Service Book, having her name as nominee, by depriving the petitioner.” 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, with a request to issue direction to the respondent authorities to process and pay the family pension of the petitioner. 4. The respondent No. 9, namely, Nurjahan Sultana @ Nurjahan Begum, filed her affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, she had taken a stand that the petitioner was neither married to Late Lutfur Hussain and that Late Lutfur Hussain had died on 09.05.2021; whereas, the petitioner has stated the date of his expiry as 10.05.2021; and the petitioner has no connection with Late Lutfur Hussain; and that no marriage between Late Lutfur Hussain and the writ petitioner was solemnized; and from the record, it appears that on 12.12.1999, a Kabinnama was executed prior to the pronouncement of Nikah formula (Sigha) (i.e., utterance of the words of proposal and acceptance of both the parties themselves or their representatives in each other’s presence and hearing and also in presence and hearing of witnesses) fraudulently. On 10.01.2000, the bridegroom submitted an application for cancellation of the said “Kabinnama” stating that the said Kabinnama was fraudulently executed. Accordingly, the Sadar Kazi of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Sadar Nagaon, by an order dated 10.01.2000, canceled the said Kabinnama No. 464, under Rule 36 of the Registry. The said order, dated 10.01.2000, reveals that no marriage between Late Lutfur Hussain and the writ petitioner was solemnized and the Kabinnama, dated 12.12.1999, executed before the utterance of the words of declaration and acceptance is void ab-initio. The said order, dated 10.01.2000, reveals that no marriage between Late Lutfur Hussain and the writ petitioner was solemnized and the Kabinnama, dated 12.12.1999, executed before the utterance of the words of declaration and acceptance is void ab-initio. As such, no marriage of the writ petitioner was solemnized with Late Lutfur Hussain and accordingly, the writ petitioner is not a wife of Lutfur Hussain (since deceased). 4.1 It is also stated that in the Judgment, dated 30.07.2004, at Page No. 9, shows that Lutfur Hussain deposed before the Court that no marriage was solemnized between him and the writ petitioner and only one agreement took place between him and the writ petitioner, regarding marriage at Sadar Kazi Office, and the Kabinnama was cancelled later on; and she denied that her marriage with Lutfur Hussain was her second marriage and no marriage of Lutfur Hussain was solemnized with any other women, prior to her marriage with Lutfur Hussain; and Rule 24 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, does not apply/arise here in this case; and that, the case being withdrawn, on the basis of an agreement, is absurd and unbelievable; and since, there was no marriage between the writ petitioner and Late Lutfur Hussain, the question of Talaq does not arise; and that Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, provides that the term “Family” includes wife, minor sons and unmarried minor daughters in case of a male officer and as such, Rule 143 debars the writ petitioner to claim family pension on the death of Lutfur Hussain, as the writ petitioner is not the wife of Lutfur Hussain, since no marriage was solemnized between them; and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 5. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply, denying the statement and averment made by the respondent No. 9 and that, after signing the agreement, dated 14.09.2004, the petitioner continued her conjugal life with her deceased husband and her husband, willingly opened a Post Office Savings Account at Nagaon, in the name of the writ petitioner, vide Account No. 138936, dated 31.12.2005 (Annexure-I, at page 93). 5.1 It is also stated that she had filed one writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1738/2022 and this Court passed one interim order on 11.03.2022 in WP(C) No. 1738/2022, and she had produced the said interim order before the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hojai, on 17.03.2022 and despite that, the D.I.S., Hojai had forwarded the proposal of GPF amount and some other benefits in favour of the respondent No. 9, on 02.08.2022 and the same has already been released in favour of the respondent No. 9 and under such circumstances, it is contended to allow this petition. 6. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the first wife of Late Lutfur Hussain and during the subsistence of the first marriage with the petitioner, Late Lutfur Hussain contracted a second marriage with the private respondent No. 9; and that the petitioner, being the first wife, is entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits. 6.1 Mr. Choudhury also drew the attention of this Court to the Complaint Case under Section 498(A) IPC, filed by the petitioner and also the Maintenance Case; wherein, Late Lutfur Hussain was convicted under 498(A)/406 IPC and also he was directed to pay maintenance by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, respectively; and drawing the attention of this Court to the agreement, dated 14.09.2004, at Page No. 51 of the petition; Mr. Choudhury submits that under certain terms and conditions, the CR Case No. 481/2001 and also the Maintenance Case, had been compromised and these documents go a long way to show that the petitioner is a legally married wife of Late Lutfur Hussain and as such, she is entitled to the pension and other pensionary benefits of her deceased husband and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 7. Per contra, Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 submits that the respondent No. 9 is the legally married wife of late Lutfur Hussain and her name as a wife entered in the service book and she has also received some of the pensionary benefits, being the legally married wife. 7.1 Further, referring to the Complaint Case and the Maintenance Case, Mr. Phukan submits that the same does not determine as to whether the petitioner is the legally married wife or not. 7.2 Mr. 7.1 Further, referring to the Complaint Case and the Maintenance Case, Mr. Phukan submits that the same does not determine as to whether the petitioner is the legally married wife or not. 7.2 Mr. Phukan has also drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Reema Agarwala Vs. Anupam , (2004) 3 SCC 199 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that liberal interpretation should be used when deciding a husband and wife’s relationship when addressing the issue of reducing societal evil. However, when it comes to deciding their civil rights, a stringent interpretation should be used. 7.3 Mr. Phukan further submits that the Annexure-2, the agreement, upon which the petitioner relied upon, is not a registered document; and though the petitioner has claimed that her marriage was solemnized with Late Lutfur Hussain on 1999, yet the Kabinnama, so executed, has subsequently been cancelled and as such, no valid marriage subsists between the petitioner and Late Lutfur Hussain and Mr. Phukan also submits that a Criminal Court cannot declare the validity of a marriage between the parties and under such circumstances, Mr. Phukan has contended to dismiss this writ petition. 8. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and I find substance in the submission of Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9. 9. It appears from the record that the Kabinnama, that has allegedly been executed by Late Lutfur Hussain, in respect of the marriage with the petitioner, has subsequently been cancelled. Further, it appears that though, the learned Trial Court, in C.R. Case No. 481/2001, convicted Late Lutfur Hussain under Sections 498(A)/406 IPC and also in one Maintenance Case, maintenance was granted to the petitioner @ Rs. 500 per month, by the learned SDJM, Nagaon, yet, in the said two cases, the learned Court has not conclusively determined the status of the parties. Moreover, as held in the case of Reema Agarwala (Supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court that liberal interpretation should be used when deciding a husband and wife’s relationship, when addressing the issue of reducing societal evil i.e. the cases under Section 498-A IPC and other dowry related offences. Moreover, as held in the case of Reema Agarwala (Supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court that liberal interpretation should be used when deciding a husband and wife’s relationship, when addressing the issue of reducing societal evil i.e. the cases under Section 498-A IPC and other dowry related offences. However, when it comes to deciding their civil rights, like the present one, a stringent interpretation should be used. 10. Further, the standard of proof of marriage between the parties for the purpose of Section 498(A) IPC and also for granting maintenance is not of such high standard. Moreover, the agreement, dated 14.09.2004, upon which, the petitioner has relied upon, is not a registered document. 11. Thus, it appears that in this petition, disputed question of facts i.e. whether the petitioner is the legally married first wife of Late Lutfur Hussain or not and to decide such an issue the materials placed on record are not sufficient. There appears to be a requirement of recording of evidence, on the basis of which such a disputed question, can be decided, which is not possible in the present writ proceeding. 12. While dealing with the issue of disputed question of fact involved in a writ proceeding, Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the Electrical Equipment case of M/s A.P. Corporation vs. The Tahsildar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4526-4527 of 2024) held as under:- POWER OF WRIT COURT TO DETERMINE DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT:- "47. One stock argument available with the State in this type of cases is that the question whether the actual physical possession of the disputed land had been taken over or not is a seriously disputed question of fact, which the High Court should not adjudicate or determine in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. As a principle of law, there need not be any debate on such a proposition, but by merely submitting that it is a seriously disputed question of fact, the same, by itself, will not become a question of fact. To put it in other words, having regard to the materials on record, which falsifies the case of the State Government, then such materials should not be overlooked or ignored by the Court on the principle that the issue with regard to taking over of the actual physical possession would be a disputed question of fact. 48. To put it in other words, having regard to the materials on record, which falsifies the case of the State Government, then such materials should not be overlooked or ignored by the Court on the principle that the issue with regard to taking over of the actual physical possession would be a disputed question of fact. 48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice. 49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences. 50. In the aforesaid context, we may look into the decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 . In paragraph 6 at p. 1270 of the said judgment, this Court has been pleased to hold as follows:- "Under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised by the petitioner. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 . In paragraph 6 at p. 1270 of the said judgment, this Court has been pleased to hold as follows:- "Under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised by the petitioner. Where an enquiry into complicated questions of fact arises in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the right of an aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined. The High Court may in appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court." (Emphasis supplied) 51. This Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality, AIR 1970 SC 602 observed as follows:- "The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction entertain a petition considering the merely because in petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Art.226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex for their nature, which may determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, analogous reasons." (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the instant case, as discussed above, the issue is whether the petitioner is the legally married first wife of Late Lutfur Hussain or not and to decide such an issue the materials placed on record are not sufficient. It has been held that without recording evidence, such a disputed question cannot be decided, which is not possible in the present writ proceeding. And as such, it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable, as disputed question of facts are involved herein. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition, granting liberty to the parties to approach appropriate forum for determining their rights. 15. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.