Uttarakhand High Court
6 August vs Parvati Devi And Others on 6 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6911-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Appeal No. 177 of 2024
06 August, 2025
Sarojni Devi Alias Soni Rawat --Appellant
Versus
Parvati Devi and Others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, filed under Section 19 of
Family Courts Act, appellant has challenged the
judgment and decree dated 25.05.2024, passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Almora in Civil Case No.
20 of 2014 (T162/2022), “Smt. Parvati Devi Vs.
Government of India and others“. By the impugned
judgment, respondent No.1 was declared to be legally
wedded first wife of late Havaldar Dev Singh Rawat and
the marriage of appellant with late Dev Singh Rawat
during life time of his first wife, was declared as null
and void. Senior Records Officer, Record Kumaon
Regiment, Ranikhet was directed to pay family pension
to the legally wedded first wife of late Havaldar Dev
Singh Rawat.
1
2025:UHC:6911-DB
2. Appellant has challenged the judgment
rendered by learned Family Court on following grounds:
1) That plaintiff (respondent no.1) failed to
lead any evidence in support of her
contention that she was married to late Dev
Singh Rawat in the year 1983, yet Family
Court by completely overlooking the said
aspect decreed her suit;
2) In her statement, plaintiff (respondent
no.1) stated that her date of birth is
05.01.1972, which shows that, she was about
11 years of age at the time of her alleged
marriage; and
3) The family Court overstepped its
jurisdiction by directing the employer to pay
Family Pension of late Dev Singh Rawat to
plaintiff (respondent no.1).
3. Plaint of the suit filed by respondent No.1 is
enclosed as Annexure-1 to the Interim Relief
Application filed by appellant. In para 2 of the plaint, it
is mentioned that marriage between plaintiff and late
Dev Singh Rawat was solemnized on 21.06.1983 as per
Hindu rites in village Dadholi (Thapla), Patti Malla Dora,
Tehsil Dwarahat, District Almora.
4. In para 6 to 9 of the plaint, plaintiff referred
to the application seeking maintenance filed by her and
the amount which was paid as maintenance by late Dev
Singh Rawat to her, pursuant to order passed by
Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet.
5. In para 11 of the plaint, it was mentioned
that late Havaldar Dev Singh Rawat passed away on
04.07.2009, at his native village Kudoli (Thapla).
2
2025:UHC:6911-DB
6. In para 18 of the plaint, it was stated that
Senior Records Officer, Records Kumaon Regimental
Centre, in reply to legal notice sent on behalf of plaintiff
informed that name of some other lady, namely, Soni
Rawat @ Sarojini Devi is mentioned in the records
available with the Army, as legally wedded wife of late
Havaldar Dev Singh Rawat.
7. Appellant made following statement in reply
to averment made in para 1 and 2 of the plaint.
“1) That the contents of para 1 of the plaint are
denied for want of knowledge to the extent they
pertain to the ancestry of the Plaintiff. The averment
pertaining to the demise of her “husband” is denied
with the utmost vehemence. The Plaintiff is put to
strict proof of her having ever being married to the
late Dev Singh Rawat.
2) That contents of para 2 of the plaint are false,
frivolous, concocted and denied most vehemently. It
is specifically denied that the Plaintiff ever got
married to late Dev Singh Rawat in the presence of
her parents and relatives at the place averred in the
para under reply. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of
the said averments.”
8. In para 9 of the written statement, appellant
contended that she is the only legally wedded wife of
late Dev Singh Rawat even as per the service records.
9. Based on the pleadings, learned Family Court
framed following six issues:
1) Whether plaintiff is the only legally
wedded wife of late Dev Singh Rawat? If yes
then its effect?
3
2025:UHC:6911-DB
2) Whether marriage of late Dev Singh Rawat
with defendant no.2, is void? If yes then its
effect?
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to service
pension of late Dev Singh Rawat? If yes then
its effect?
4) Whether Family Court has jurisdiction to
hear the matter?
5) Whether plaintiff has paid sufficient court
fees?
6) Relief, if any, which can be granted?
10. All the aforesaid issues were decided in
favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.2/
appellant. For deciding issue no.1 in favour of plaintiff
and against defendant no.2/ appellant, learned Family
Court relied upon statement made by Dev Singh Rawat
before Munsif Magistrate, Ranikhet in Misc. Criminal
Case No.17 of 1993 “Parvati Rawat Vs. Dev Singh” filed
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In his statement before
Munsif Magistrate, in the aforesaid proceedings, Dev
Singh Rawat admitted that applicant (Parvati Devi) is
his legally wedded wife. Learned Family Court also took
note of the fact that in the case filed by respondent
no.1 claiming maintenance, initially ₹500/- per month
was granted as maintenance to respondent no.1,
however, subsequently on her application filed under
Section 127 Cr.P.C., the amount of maintenance was
increased to ₹1,000/- per month vide order dated
27.09.2008.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that even though Dev Singh Rawat in his statement
admitted factum of his marriage with respondent no.1,
4
2025:UHC:6911-DB
however, there was no evidence regarding date of
marriage between Dev Singh Rawat and Parvati Devi
(plaintiff). He submits that Parvati Devi, in her
deposition before the Family Court, stated that her date
of birth is 05.01.1972, therefore, in 1983 when she
claims to have married to Dev Singh Rawat, she was
only 11 years of age. Thus, he submits that claim made
by Parvati Devi that she married Dev Singh in 1983
cannot be accepted.
12. Per contra, Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that in
paragraph no.2 of the plaint, his client not only stated
that she is legally wedded wife of Dev Singh but date of
her marriage with Dev Singh Rawat was also indicated.
He submits that appellant in her written statement
denied the assertion regarding marriage and stated
that plaintiff is put to strict proof of averment regarding
marriage, however, in view of admission made by Dev
Singh Rawat in maintenance proceedings before Munsif
Magistrate, Ranikhet, the statement made by appellant
in her written statement gets belied and thus, not only
the factum of marriage but also the date of marriage is
proved. He further submits that appellant in her
Examination-in-Chief changed her stand and stated
that marriage of respondent no.1 with Late Dev Singh
Rawat was not legal and further that appellant is the
first wife of Late Shri Dev Singh.
13. The contention made by learned counsel for
the appellant that in the absence of evidence regarding
date of marriage, the finding returned on issue No. 1 is
perverse, cannot be accepted. Dev Singh Rawat was
5
2025:UHC:6911-DB
examined as witness before Munsif Magistrate,
Ranikhet in maintenance proceedings and he conceded
that Parvati Devi (respondent No. 1) is his legally
wedded wife. Dev Singh Rawat could have taken a
stand that he was earlier married to the appellant
therefore his marriage with Parvati Devi is not legal;
however, he did not take that plea. Dev Singh Rawat
did not challenge the order passed in maintenance
proceedings and also paid maintenance to respondent
No. 1. In view of the admission made by Dev Singh
Rawat before Munsif Magistrate, Ranikhet that
respondent No. 1 is his legally wedded wife, the
contention raised on behalf of appellant is devoid of
merit.
14. The finding returned by learned Family Court
on issue no.1 thus cannot be faulted.
15. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi further submits that
since marriage of Parvati Devi with Dev Singh was
solemnized in 1983 and Dev Singh married with
appellant during lifetime of Parvati Devi, on
26.12.1990, therefore, in view of provision contained in
Section 5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, marriage of Sarojni
Devi @ Soni Rawat (appellant) with Dev Singh is void.
He thus submits that any interference with the
impugned judgment and decree passed by learned
Family Court would not be warranted.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for appellant
submits that finding on question of jurisdiction is not
correct as Family Court does not have jurisdiction to
direct the employer to pay family pension to the
plaintiff in proceedings under Family Courts Act.
6
2025:UHC:6911-DB
17. In Paragraph No.12 of the impugned
judgment, learned Family Court referred to
determination on the question of jurisdiction made by
learned Senior Civil Judge, Almora, vide order dated
07.12.2022, as the Suit was originally filed before Civil
Judge and upon creation of Family Court in District
Almora, the Suit was transferred to the Family Court.
Learned Civil Judge held that the issue as to which of
the two women claiming to be legally wedded wife of
late Dev Singh Rawat, is entitled to family pension is
cognizable by Family Court. We find no infirmity in the
determination made on the question of jurisdiction.
18. Section 7 of Family Courts Act confers upon
Family Court the entire jurisdiction exercisable by any
district court or any subordinate civil court in respect of
suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the
Explanation. A Family Court thus can decide on a
dispute regarding family pension between two women,
especially if it involves issues related to marriage,
divorce or maintenance, which are typically within the
purview of Family Courts. These Courts are designed to
handle family related matters and dispute over family
pension, especially those connected to marital status or
family relationships, fall under their jurisdiction.
19. In case two or more women stake claim for
family pension of a deceased employee, then such
dispute can be decided only by a family Court as the
Court will have to determine as to which of the
claimants is legally wedded wife. Explanation to Section
7 of Family Courts Act enumerates the different suits
and proceedings over which Family Court will have
7
2025:UHC:6911-DB
jurisdiction. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 will fall
under clause (b) and clause (c) to the explanation of
Section 7 of the Act.
20. Since there was a dispute between two
women who were claiming to be wife of late Dev Singh
Rawat, and validity of their marriage can only be
decided by a Family Court, therefore, the Family Court
will have incidental power to issue direction to the
employer to pay family pension to the one who is found
to be legally married with the deceased. Family pension
is property and Family Court can very well decide
property rights. Asking the party whose marriage was
declared to be valid to approach some other judicial
forum for seeking family pension would not only
amount to travesty of justice but it would also be
against public policy, as public policy demands that no
one should be vexed twice and all the issues should be
decided in one suit.
21. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment, which may warrant interference.
Thus, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
06.08.2025
SS
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
SUKHBANT SINGH
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1
885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C4226136
1AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.21 15:36:18 +05’30’
8