Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SUMAN GAUTAM versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRY., MINI. WELFARE & WAQF AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Suman Gautam v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secry., Mini. Welfare & Waqf And Others - WRIT - A No. 20541 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17412 (9 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.20541 OF 2003

Vishnu Kumar                                                   ...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh and others.           ...Respondents

---------------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing  Counsel.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 7.4.03 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah, by which he has come to a conclusion that the petitioner was unable to establish the authority concerned that he was the lawful wedded husband of Smt. Geetha who expired on 9.8.2000.  

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has disclosed in paragraph-6 of the writ petition that previously, Smt. Geeta Tewari was married to one Ashok Kumar and decided to separate from him.  The separation between Geeta Tewari and Ashok Kumar, her first husband was settled by both parties on 21.5.2000.   The statement on record in Annexure-3, which also contains a stipulation that the separation itself gives a right to either party to enter into a fresh marriage.  It is admitted to the petitioner who claims to be the second husband that he married Smt. Geeta Tewari after this settlement and, therefore, after she expired, he became entitled to be appointed under the Dying and Harness Rules on compassionate ground.

I have perused the impugned order.  The authority has examined the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that the present petitioner Shri Vishnu Kumar could not claim the status of a husband because as per the admitted facts, there was no valid divorce between Smt. Geeta Tewari and her first husband.  It could not be said by any stretch of imagination that a valid Hindu Marriage can be brought to an end by way of a settlement or compromise between the parties until it has the due sanction of law.  Under the Hindu Marriage Act the  settlement dated 25.1.2000 can not be accepted as a decree or a valid dissolution that took place between Geeta Tewari and her husband Shri Ashok Kumar.  

The entire claim of the petitioner rests on the document-dated 25.1.2000, which cannot be held to be a valid dissolution of a marriage.  Therefore, really speaking, the petitioner has no claim.  

In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 7.4.03 contains no error of law.  

This writ petition is wholly without any merits and is, therefore, dismissed.  

Dated : 6.10.06

L.F./20541/03/15


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.