Ram Kripal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
1 WA-1624-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
st
ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1624 of 2026
RAM KRIPAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Mahabir Prasad Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Ankur Mody - A.A.G. for respondents/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This intra-court appeal has been filed under Section 2 (1) of the
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6632/2024.
2. Appellant had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i. That, the respondent may please be directed to Grant terminal
benefit including family pension provided in the Madhya Pradesh
Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 to the petitioner.
ii. Please to issue writ of mandamus to the respondents directing him to
pay all financial benefits.
iii. That, the respondents further may please be directed to pay the
amount of benefits after addinginterest @ 12% overall these benefits for
delay of payment paid to the petitioner.
iv. That, the cost of the petition, may kindly be allowed.
v. That any other order or direction doing justice in the matter in favour
of the petitioner may also be please to pass."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
2 WA-1624-2026
3. It was the case of appellant that his wife late Smt. Suman Devi was
permanent employee on the post of Chowkidar in the Department of Tribal
and Welfare. During the course of employment, she passed away on
17.08.2022. On account of illegal and arbitrary actions on the part of
respondents, the family pension and other benefits payable to appellant have
not been paid despite of repeated and rigorous efforts.
4. Respondents filed their written statement. It was the case of
respondents that the Court of Additional Collector, Gwalior, by order dated
29.12.2022, had issued a certificate regarding the legal heirs of the deceased
employee Smt. Suman according to which Kok Singh Kushwaha, being the
husband of Smt. Suman Bai, and Anil, Veer Singh, and Renu, being the
children of Smt. Suman Bai from Kok Singh, are the legal representatives.
Even otherwise, in the service book, Kok Singh (husband), Renu (daughter),
Anil (son) and Shankar Lal (father) are mentioned as the legal heirs. Thus, in
nutshell, it was the case of respondents that appellant Ram Kripal Singh is
not the husband of late Smt. Suman Bai, and thus, he is not entitled for any
dues.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties and
considering the material available on record, dismissed the writ petition by
holding that appellant has failed to prove that he was the husband of late
Smt. Suman Devi. However, liberty was also granted to the appellant to
initiate appropriate proceedings to establish his relationship as husband of
late Smt. Suman Devi and then raise his claim before the competent
authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
3 WA-1624-2026
6. Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is
submitted by counsel for appellant that respondent had misled the learned
Single Judge as they did not file the entire copy of the service book. It is
further submitted that appellant has filed I.A. No. 6650/2026 under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC for taking additional documents on record. It is submitted that
it is true that Kok Singh was the first husband of late Smt. Suman, but in the
month of November 1998, divorce of Suman had taken place with Kok
Singh, and thereafter, late Smt. Suman performed court marriage with the
appellant on 11.09.2000. Even in the death certificate of Smt. Suman, name
of the husband was mentioned as Ram Kripal Singh, (appellant). It is further
submitted that an arms license was also issued in the name of Smt. Suman in
which name of her husband was mentioned as Ram Kripal Singh. It is further
submitted that Smt. Suman had also given an affidavit for change of nominee
in which she had disclosed the name of her husband as Ram Kripal. A
certificate by the Collector was also issued to the effect that Smt. Suman,
wife of Ram Kripal Singh, is working on the post of Chowkidar and her
work is satisfactory. Even in the GPF account, name of the husband of Smt.
Suman is mentioned as Ram Kripal.
7 . Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondents. It is submitted that in compliance of order dated 29.05.2026,
original service book along with the service record is available for perusal by
this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties.
9. From the service book, it is clear that the name of husband of Smt.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
4 WA-1624-2026
Suman Devi has been mentioned as Kok Singh. There is no interpolation or
overwriting. Even the relevant copy of the service book was filed by
respondents in their return filed in the writ petition. Original service book
was also shown to the counsel for appellant as well as appellant, who is also
present in the Court. From the service record, it appears that an agreement to
sell was entered into between Smt. Sushila and Smt. Suman (deceased
employee) on 07.02.2003 in respect of one plot situated in Daliya wala
Mohalla, Lashkar, Gwalior, admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. In that affidavit, Smt.
Suman had disclosed her husband's name as Kok Singh. Furthermore, the
service record also contains a letter dated 27.05.2004, written by District
Organizer, Adim Jati Kalyan, Gwalior, which was addressed to Suman Bai.
In that letter, an explanation was called from Smt. Suman Bai that in her
service book, name of her husband is mentioned as Kok Singh, whereas in
her applications dated 18.05.2004 and 28.05.2004, which were made for
grant of leave, name of her husband was mentioned as Ram Kripal.
Accordingly, she was called upon to clarify the things so that a decision on
the application for grant of leave can be considered. A reply was filed by
Smt. Suman Devi on 03.06.2004 in which she had specifically stated that the
name of her husband is Kok Singh Kushwah. It was specifically mentioned
that neither Ram Kripal Singh is her husband nor she has any relation with
him. The relevant part of the reply given by Suman Bai to the letter dated
27.05.2004 reads as under:
"
वषयातग त एवं स दिभ त प के पालन म िनवेदन है क मेरे पित का नाम
ी कोक िसंह कुशवाह है | रामकृपाल िसंह न तो मेरे पित है और ना ह % उनसे मेरा
"
कोई स (बध है |
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
5 WA-1624-2026
10. A specific question was put to the counsel for State as to whether
any application was made by Smt. Suman Bai for change of nominee or not?
After going through the service record, it was submitted by counsel for State
that no application was ever filed by Smt. Suman Bai for change of nominee.
11. The service book also contains the marriage card of Anil Kushwah,
who is the son of Smt. Suman Bai. Marriage of Anil Kushwah was
performed in the month of June 2006, and in that marriage card also, name
of the husband of Smt. Suman Bai was mentioned as Kok Singh Kushwah.
12. Thus, it is clear that even in the declarations, which were made by
Smt. Suman Bai, she had specifically disclosed that the name of her husband
is Kok Singh and not Ram Kripal Singh / appellant.
13. The service record also contains a letter dated 30.09.2022 issued by
Assistant Commissioner (Jan Jatiya Karya Vibhag) Gwalior, which was
addressed to Kok Singh Kushwah and Ram Kripal / appellant. In this letter, it
was mentioned that Ram Kripal had also claimed himself to be the husband
of Smt. Suman Bai, and accordingly, both of them were directed to obtain
the succession certificate.
14. It is fairly conceded by Ram Kripal, who is present in person, as
well as his counsel, that appellant has not initiated any succession
proceedings.
15. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of
I.A. No. 6650/2026 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking
additional documents on record. Along with this application, a photocopy of
a notarized agreement purportedly executed by Kok Singh and Suman Bai
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
6 WA-1624-2026
has been placed on record. According to this notarized agreement, Suman
Bai and Kok Singh had taken divorce. Appellant has also filed a photocopy
of an affidavit executed by Suman Bai in which she had claimed that earlier
she was married to Kok Singh, but by a notarized agreement, the marital
relationship with Kok Singh were broken on 27.11.1998, and now she has
married Ram Kripal. The service book of Smt. Suman Bai also contains an
application filed by the appellant, which was addressed to the Commissioner.
This application is dated 11.11.2022. The opening lines of this application is
that the appellant had performed marriage with the deceased employee Smt.
Suman Bai on 14.07.1999 by executing an agreement of marriage. The
relevant lines are as under:
"
उपरो + वषय म िनवेदन है क ,ाथ. क / प 0ी सुमनबाई से वष 14/07/1999 को
विधवत ववाह अनुबंध प के मा 8यम से हुई थी। :जसक/ छाया ,ित पी-1 से पी-4
संल >न है। तबसे सुमनबाई ,ाथ. के साथ ह % ,ाथ. के घर पर ह % रह रह % थी। "
16. A copy of the notarized marriage agreement was also annexed
along with this application. Copy of the marriage agreement, which is part of
the service record, reads as under:
"।। ी ।।
िलखतम ववाह अनुब ध -प (घर %चा ) Eटा(प क /मती 50/- H. पेज-4
============================================================
रामकृपालिसंह पु ी रघुन दनिसंह आयु 32 साल,
Oयवसाय शासक /य नौकर % रे Qवे , िनवासी रे Qवे कॉलोनी
पलवल फर %दाबाद (ह Tरयाणा ), हाल िनवासी यू रे Qवे
कॉलोनी Wवाटर नं0-100 Xलॉक नं0-4 डबल Eटोर% >वािलयर ।
--- प Zकार [मांक -1
सुमन कुशवाहा पु ी ीशंकरलाल कुशवाह आयु कर %ब 30 साल,
Oयवसाय शासक /य नौकर % , िनवासी डिलया बाला मोह Qला
ल \कर , >वािलयर म. ,. ।
--- प Zकार [मांक -2
हो क हम प Zकार [मांक -1 व 2 के म 8य ववाह बावत िन (न िल :खत अनुब ध
हुआ है:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
7 WA-1624-2026
1- यह क , प Zकार [मांक -1 Eव सरकार % नौकर % म िनयु + रे Qवे वभाग म काय रत
है। व अपना भला बुरा सोचने एवं समझने म पूण Hप से स Zम है। तथा प Zकार
[मांक -2 भी EवE_य होकर आ दवासी वभाग म काय रत है, जो अपना भला बुरा
सोचने म पूण Hप से स Zम है, तथा दोन ` प Zकार पूण Hप से बािलग होकर अपने
भ वaय के बारे म िनण य लेने के िलए Eवतं ह b ।
Page No of the marriage agreement is not available in the
( . 2
record
)
-3-
तथा उनक / चल व अचल संप c के वैध वा Tरस ह `गे तथा उनको वह सम Eत हक व
अिधकार ,ाd ह `गे जो एक संतान को अपने माता पता से ,ाd होते ह b ।
6- यह क , इस ववाह म कसी भी प Zकार gारा कोई रकम अथवा दान दहेज नह %ं
दया गया है, दान दहेज का ब हaकार कया गया है।
7- यह क , प Zकार` के म 8य ब हन भाई का Tर\ता नह %ं है। अथा त ववाह करने म
कोई वैधािनक hकावट नह %ं है।
8- यह क , प Zकार [मांक -1 व 2 के म 8य भ वaय म कसी ,कार का ववाद
उ jपन होने क / दशा म आपस म बैठकर उसका िनपटारा आपसी सहमित के gारा
कया जावेगा। िनपटारा न होने क / दशा म यायालय gारा िनपटारा कराने के िलए
दोन ` प Zकार Eवतं ह `गे इसम कसी भी प Zकार को कोई आप c नह %ं होगी।
9- यह क , हम दोन ` प Zकार` के समाज म इस तरह के ववाह अनुब ध - (घर %चा )
करने क / ,था ,चिलत है, इसकारण हम प Zकार` ने आय समाज के िस lात` म
वmास रखते हुए यह ववाह आपस म संप न कया है।
-4-
10- यह क , प Zकार [मांक -1 आज दनांक से प Zकार [मांक -2 के खाने, पीनेर,
रहने, कपड़े आ द क / समुिचत OयवEथा करेगा तथा भ वaय म उसको कसी ,कार
से मारपीट या ,ताड़त नह %ं करेगा तथा सम Eत पित कत Oय` का िन oा पूव क पालन
करेगा।
अतः यह िलखतम ववाह अनुब ध -प (घर %चा ) हम प Zकार` ने आपसी
सहमित से बना कसी ध qस दबाव व नशे प cे के सोच समझकर, सुनकर, पढ़कर,
HबH गवाहन संपा दत कर दया क ,माण रहे व समय पर कामआवे।
दनांक : 14-07-1999
ह EताZर प Zकार [ं० -1
ह EताZर प Zकार [ं० -2"
17. Accordingly, adjudication of the following circumstances is
required:
(i) whether the marital ties of Kok Singh and Smt. Suman
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
8 WA-1624-2026
Bai can be severed by executing a notarized divorce paper;
(ii) whether a marriage by contract can be performed under
the Hindu law; and
(iii) whether a notarized marriage agreement can be said to
be a valid marriage.
18. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under:
"5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.—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;
(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party—
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence
of unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been
suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an
extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of
children; or
(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity,
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and
the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage;
(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship
unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a
marriage between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or
usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the
two;"
Therefore, it is clear that none of the parties to the marriage should
have a living spouse at the time of marriage.
19. Undisputedly, Kok Singh was the first husband of late Smt.
Suman. No petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ever
filed by the parties. No decree, either under Section 13 or Section 13A of the
Hindu Marriage Act, was obtained by any of the parties for severing the
marital ties of Kok Singh with Smt. Suman Bai. Divorce cannot take place
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
9 WA-1624-2026
merely on execution of a notarized agreement of divorce.
20. Under these circumstances, it is clear that marital ties of Smt.
Suman Bai with Kok Singh was never severeed/broken, and thus, the first
marriage of Smt. Suman Bai continued to subsist in absence of any decree
for divorce.
21. The next question for consideration is as to whether the marriage
of Suman Bai with Ram Kripal can be performed by executing an agreement
of marriage or not?
22. Although it was submitted by appellant himself that he had
performed court marriage with late Smt. Suman Bai, but it is clear from the
agreement of marriage filed by appellant himself before the Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior, which is a part of the service record of Smt.
Suman Bai, that no court marriage of the appellant had taken place with Smt.
Suman Bai. Although it is mentioned in the agreement of marriage that there
is a custom to perform marriage by notarized agreement, but appellant could
not cite even a single instance to show the existence of such custom in the
society. In order to prove custom, the aspirant must prove that the custom
was not only recognized by the society but is also still in existence for the
last several years, or it was ever recognized by the courts. Marriage is not a
contract under Hindu law, and therefore, it cannot be performed by executing
a notarized agreement of marriage.
23. Under these circumstances, it is held that appellant has failed to
prove that he was ever married to late Smt. Suman Bai.
24. Although the learned Single Judge had granted liberty to appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
10 WA-1624-2026
to seek a declaration that he is the husband of late Smt. Suman Bai, but as it
was insisted by the appellant himself that he should be declared as husband
of late Smt. Suman Bai, therefore, this Court was required to consider the
submissions and the documents filed along with the appeal and I.A. No.
6650/2026.
25. Thus, it is held that the marital ties of Smt. Suman Bai was never
broken with Kok Singh and Smt. Suman Bai continued to be the legally
wedded wife of Kok Singh.
26. Even assuming that appellant Ram Kripal was in a live-in
relationship with late Smt. Suman Bai, but that by itself would not give any
legal flavor or color to such a illegal relationship.
27. Although it is well established principle of law that long
cohabitation can be presumed to be a valid marriage, but once the first
marriage of late Smt. Suman Bai was never severed, and in case if the long
cohabitation (this is not a finding of the Court but it is being considered in
the light of the submissions made by appellant) is treated as a presumption of
a valid marriage, then such presumption would be contrary to Section 5 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, and in view of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, any marriage solemnized in contravention of any of the conditions
specified in subsections (i) (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage
Act would be a void marriage.
28. Thus, viewed from every angle, it is clear that Kok Singh was the
husband of late Smt. Suman Bai and he continued to remain so, and appellant
Ram Kripal, who might be in a live-in relationship with late Smt. Suman
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161
11 WA-1624-2026
Bai, did not acquire any legal status.
29. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
appellant is not entitled for any benefits on account of the death of Smt.
Suman Bai.
30. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-07-2026
02:42:32 PM