ORDER : SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:- “8.1 Respondent Authority be directed to delete the name of Kiran Singh as mentioned in the Bracket from the Death Certificate (Annexure P/A). 8.2. Respondent Authority be directed to compensate the Petitioner towards the undue hardship faced by the Petitioner. 8.3. Any other relief in favour of the Petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1/Municipal Corporation, Indore has issued the death certificate of her husband, late Hemendra Singh Pawar in the name of the petitioner-Shaila Raje Pawar @ Shaila Devi as also the respondent no.2/Smt. Kiran Singh, who has also claimed herself to be his second wife. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 29.12.1999, the petitioner got married to late Shri Hemendra Singh Pawar as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of this wedlock, they also have a son-Prathmeshwar Singh Pawar, who was born in the year 2008. Admittedly, Hemendra Singh Pawar has died on 06.11.2023, in SRJ-CBCC Cancer Hospital, Indore, and after his death, in the death certificate issued by the respondent no.1/Municipal Corporation, Indore, the name of his wife is recorded as Kiran Singh. Being aggrieved, the petitioner also sent legal notice to the said Hospital for providing wrong information to the Municipal Corporation and a separate application was also submitted to the Municipal Corporation, Indore for correction of the death certificate of late Hemandra Singh Pawar. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the Municipal Corporation has corrected the death certificate, which is marked as Annexure P/9. However, in place of name of the wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar, it is mentioned as Shaila Raje Pawar and the name of Kiran Singh is also mentioned in brackets in the following manner:- “Name of husband/wife: Shaila Raje Pawar (Kiran Singh)” Thus, being aggrieved of the same, the present petition has been filed. 4. However, in place of name of the wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar, it is mentioned as Shaila Raje Pawar and the name of Kiran Singh is also mentioned in brackets in the following manner:- “Name of husband/wife: Shaila Raje Pawar (Kiran Singh)” Thus, being aggrieved of the same, the present petition has been filed. 4. Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner happens to be the legally wedded wife of late Shri Hemendra Singh Pawar and her marriage would fall under clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely; (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage, as at the time of their marriage neither party had a spouse living at the time of marriage. Thus, it is submitted that even though certain photographs have also been filed by the respondent no.2 to demonstrating that Kiran Singh also got married to Hemendra Singh Pawar, the same are not relevant and are inconsequential as her marriage with Hemandra Singh Pawar cannot be said to be a legal marriage, in accordance with law. 5. Learned Senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the various documents, including Passport, Aadhar Card and Samagra ID etc. of the petitioner to submit that the petitioner happens to be the only legally wedded wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent no.1/Municipal Corporation be directed to correct its record and to issue the death certificate in the name of Shaila Raje Pawar only instead of mentioning the name of Kiran Singh, in addition to her name in the death certificate. 6. The prayer is opposed by the counsel for the respondent no.1/ Municipal Corporation as also the respondent no.2/Kiran Singh. 7. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that since the she also got married to Hemendra Singh Panwar, which is also demonstrated by the photographs of their marriage, hence, it has now become a disputed question of fact, which can only be tried in a Civil court. In such circumstances, the petition itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the various photographs of the respondent no. In such circumstances, the petition itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the various photographs of the respondent no. 2 relating to her marriage with Hemendra Singh Pawar (deceased), as also of the partnership deed, which was entered into between the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar as the party of the first part and Kiran Singh as the party of the second part, whereas while mentioning the name of Kiran Singh, it is also mentioned she happens to be the wife of Hemendra Singh Pawar. In such circumstances, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. 8. Counsel for the respondent no.1/Municipal Corporation has also submitted that after the documents were submitted by the petitioner, they have already carried out the correction. It is further submitted that the death certificate only reflects the entry of the register of death, and hence the certificate of death cannot be different from the entry made in the Register. 9. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From the record, it is found that so far as the reference of the name of the respondent no.2/Smt Kiran Singh in the death certificate of deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar is concerned, in the reply filed by the respondent no.1/Registrar of Birth and Death, it is stated that the name of the respondent no.2/Smt. Kiran Singh was mentioned as the wife of deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar on the basis of the record of the SRJ-CBCC Cancer Hospital, Indore, as provided under Form no. II received from the aforesaid hospital, which is filed on record. 11. The contention of the respondent no.1 is that the name of the respondent no.2/Smt. Kiran Singh cannot be deleted from the certificate as per the corresponding entry in the register of death where her name is also mentioned. 12. On perusal of the record, it is also found that the petitioner has already registered her objection by way of a legal notice sent to the SRJ-CBCC Cancer Hospital regarding mentioning of the name the respondent no.2 in the Form No.II. To which, a reply has also been sent by the Hospital contending that the aforesaid Form was filled upon the basis of the information as provided to them by the attender of the patient. 13. To which, a reply has also been sent by the Hospital contending that the aforesaid Form was filled upon the basis of the information as provided to them by the attender of the patient. 13. On the other hand, it is also found that in its reply, the respondent no.2 has placed on record various photographs of the marriage of the respondent no.2 with the deceased and additionally, the respondent no.2 has also relied upon a deed of partnership, which has been signed by late Shri Hemendra Singh Pawar as the party of the first part and Smt. Kiran Singh as the party of the second part wherein, the name of the respondent no.2 is mentioned as ‘Smt. Kiran Singh Pawar, Son of/Daughter of /Wife of / Care of Hemendra Singh Pawar’. Thus, the contention of the respondent no.2 that since her status is mentioned as the Wife of Hemendra Singh Pawar in the aforesaid deed of partnership, she is the second wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar cannot be accepted as firstly, the said document which is commercial in nature, does not confer any matrimonial status to the respondent no.2, and secondly, the reference of, ‘Smt. Kiran Singh Pawar, Son of/Daughter of /Wife of / Care of Hemendra Singh Pawar’, makes it all the more vague. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, if a question arises as to the name of the spouse of one of the partners, whether deceased or not, the same can be answered only by resorting to certain authentic documents of identification viz., the Passport, Aadhar Card, PAN Card and Voter ID and Samagra ID cards. Admittedly, so far the petitioner Shila Raje Pawar is concerned, in support of her contention that she happens to be the first and only legally wedded wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar, she has filed copy of the Passport of her husband late Shri Hemendra Singh Pawar wherein, name of his wife is mentioned as Shila Raje Pawar, her own Passport, in which, the name of her husband is mentioned as Hemendra Singh Pawar, as also the Passport of her son Prathmeshwar Singh wherein, his father’s and mother’s names have been mentioned as Hemendra Singh Pawar and Shaila Raje Pawar respectively. A copy of Samagra portal registered on 10.6.2014, has also been filed, in which also, the names of Hemendra Singh- Shaila Raje Pawar and their son Prathmeshwar Pawar are reflected. 15. In contrast, the respondent no.2 has filed the photographs taken on 29.06.2020, to substantiate that she got married to Hemedra Pawar on the said date, in addition to the deed of partnership as aforesaid, which are not sufficient to confer her the status of the wife of Hemandra Singh Pawar. 16. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that merely if the Hospital has sent the requisite Form to the Municipal Corporation, Indore, disclosing the name of the wife of the deceased as Kiran Singh Pawar, it is certainly not binding on the petitioner, the first legally wedded wife of the deceased. Hence, even if the respondent no.1/Registrar of Birth and Death has entered the name of the respondent no.2 as the wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar, the same cannot be allowed to perpetuate and is liable to be quashed. 17. This court is also of the considered opinion that as the petitioner, who has all the relevant documents to demonstrate that she happens to be the legally wedded wife of deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar, has a legal right to have her name entered in the Municipal records as the wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar, and is not obliged and cannot be forced to take recourse of the civil remedy to establish her claim. 18. Needless to say, as per Section 5 (I) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which provides that if either party has a spouse living at the time of marriage and if such marriage is solemnized after commencement of the Act of 1955, the same is null and void. Thus, presumption of law is also in favour of the petitioner herein who is admittedly the first wife of Hemandra Singh Pawar. 19. Thus, presumption of law is also in favour of the petitioner herein who is admittedly the first wife of Hemandra Singh Pawar. 19. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to allow this petition and the respondent no.1/Registrar of Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation, Indore is directed to correct the entries in the Birth and Death register, and after deleting the name of the respondent no.2/Kiran Singh from the said register, issue a fresh death certificate to the petitioner, only mentioning her name as the wife of the deceased Hemendra Singh Pawar. 20. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of.