Smt. Keshkali Shukla vs Smt. Sushma Shukla (Awasthy)

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
1

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
CIVIL REVISION No. 725 of 2024
SMT. KESHKALI SHUKLA
Versus
SMT. SUSHMA SHUKLA (AWASTHY) AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Ms. Sanjana Sahni - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ankit Saxena – Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/caveators.
Shri Dinesh Prasad Sharma – Panel Lawyer for respondents No.5 and
6/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER
(Reserved on 17.02.2026)
(Pronounced on: 17.03.2026)
The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the appellate Court dated 14.08.2024, whereby the appellate Court
has allowed the revision of the present respondents and has set aside
the succession certificate that has been granted to the present petitioner
by the trial Court.
2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of the present
petition are that the petitioner had filed an application under Section
372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking issuance of succession
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
2

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
certificate on account of death of Shri Harikishore Shukla which took
place on 09.06.2020 at Panna. The application for succession was filed
on the assertion that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of
deceased Harikishore Shukla who was originally resident of Tahsil
Atarra, District Banda (UP) and she had married the deceased on
22.04.1980. She relied on various documents in her support to contend
that she is the only admitted legally wedded wife of the deceased
Harikishore Shukla and, therefore, the deceased being employed in the
Higher Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh being
Librarian in Government Chhatrasal College, Panna (M.P.), therefore,
succession certificate be issued in respect of all the service dues and
benefits to be paid arising out of death of Late Harikishore Shukla.
3. In the aforesaid case, the respondents No.1 and 2 appeared and
filed cross objections to the effect that the respondent No.1 is the legally
wedded wife and respondent No.2 is the adopted daughter who was
adopted by the deceased and the respondent No.1 and, therefore,
succession certificate be issued in favour of the respondents No.1 and
2. In response to the said cross objections, the petitioner contended in
her reply to cross objections that so far as the name of respondent No.1
being mentioned in service book of the deceased as nominee is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
3

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
concerned, it is only because of some mental harassment being given
to the deceased Harikishore Shukla by the respondent No.1 and even
if the respondent No.1 states that she had married Harikishore Shukla
on 26.06.1989, then also second marriage in lifetime of the first wife is
null and void as per Hindu Marriage Act. Even if the respondent No.2
had been taken in adoption by the deceased, even then adoption without
consent of the wife is in itself null and void and, therefore, being
adopted daughter, respondent No.2 would not get any right or interest
in the properties of the deceased Harikishore Shukla.
4. The trial Court conducted trial of the matter and after trial
allowed the application of the petitioner for grant of succession
certificate holding her to be the legally wedded wife of Late Harikishore
Shukla and being the first wife of Late Harikishore Shukla.
5. In appeal, the appellate Court has set aside the order of the trial
Court and has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The
appellate Court has further ordered issuance of succession certificate in
favour of the respondents No.1 and 2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case on
behalf of petitioner has vehemently argued that the appellate Court has
erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the trial Court only on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
4

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
the grave legal misconception that if a Hindu marries during the age of
minority then the marriage would be void. It is argued that the aforesaid
logic and justification adopted by the appellate Court is utterly illegal
and contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act because
Hindus can marry even during minority and such marriage may have
different consequences against criminal law or under Child Marriage
Restraint Act but the marriage in itself is not a void marriage and the
other party to the marriage cannot simply re-marry without taking
divorce or a decree to declare the earlier marriage as void because the
marriage within minority would not be void ab initio and, therefore, the
appellate Court has gravely erred in granting succession certificate to
the respondents No.1 and 2 by holding that the marriage of the
petitioner with the deceased Harikishore Shukla during minority, was a
void marriage.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 has
vehemently supported the impugned order and has contended that the
appellate Court has validly set aside the unreasoned order that had been
passed by the trial Court and which was contrary to law and record. It
is argued that the trial Court ought not to have passed the order in the
manner it passed because the trial Court had skipped to consider the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
5

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
position that the present petitioner is nothing but an imposter who has
been set up by the brothers of deceased Harikishore Shukla only to grab
the service benefits of Late Harikishore Shukla because the respondent
No.7 is also in government service and was working in the same
College where Late Harikishore Shukla was working and she only has
a female child and that too adopted child and hence the brothers of Late
Harikishore Shukla do not want to part with the benefits which would
be paid on the death of Late Harikishore Shukla which is a substantial
quantum of money and out of greed the petitioner has been set up by
the family members of Harikishore Shukla just to deny the rightful dues
to the respondents No.1 and 2. It is argued that the appellate Court could
see through this game plan of the family members of Late Harikishore
Shukla and got the justice done between the parties.
8. Heard.
9. In the present case, the present petitioner had filed an application
for succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession
Act stating that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Harikishore
Shukla and married him on 22.04.1980. The deceased Harikishore
Shukla was admittedly working on the post of Librarian in Government
Chhatrasal College, Panna, which is run by the Department of Higher
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
6

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh. As per service book, the
deceased was born on 10.06.1964 and, therefore, on the alleged date of
marriage, the deceased would have been 15 years and 2 months old.
The petitioner mentioned her age as 50 years on the date of presentation
of petition for succession certificate, which was filed in July, 2020 and,
therefore, she must be around 10 to 11 years old on the date of marriage.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in saying
that the marriage does not automatically become void only because the
bride and groom were minor, but if a story is being put up before the
Court that in the year 1980, the bride was around 10 to 11 years old and
the groom was around 15 years old, then it requires scrutinising the said
assertions with greater circumspection. This Court has gone through the
order of the appellate Court. The appellate Court has not allowed the
appeal only on the ground that the marriage was void because the
parties got married during minority, but has on merits held that the
petitioner has failed to prove such marriage to have taken place and by
the detailed order has allowed the appeal.
10. The petitioner had relied on various documents in support of her
assertion that she was the legally wedded wife of Late Harikishore
Shukla. However, none of the documents which had been placed on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
7

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
record by the petitioner were prior to the death of Late Harikishore
Shukla. Ex.P-1 which is the Ration Card is only one such document.
However, the said Ration Card is stated to have been issued in Banda
(UP) and mentions the income of family as Rs.12,000/- and the
occupation of head of family as agriculture in the village. It is the case
of all the parties that deceased was working in Government College in
Parna (MP) and he was not an agriculturalist in Banda (UP). Therefore,
issuance of Ration Card mentioning that he is an agriculturalist in
Banda (UP) in itself is a false assertion made in the document. Even the
Ration Card does not mention any date of issue and only illegible
signatures of the issuing authority are mentioned on the printed format
of the Ration Card and, therefore, the appellate Court has not erred in
disbelieving the said Ration Card.
11. Ex.P-2 is the death certificate mentioning that the deceased
expired at Panna which does not mention name of any wife. Ex.P-3 is
the family certificate issued after death i.e. 06.07.2020. Ex.P-4 is the
certificate issued by Panda mentioning the name of wife of the present
petitioner which is also issued after the death, at the time of immersion
of ashes. The voter list relied is also of the year 2020 and the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
8

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
further relied on the mutation in place of deceased Harikishore Shukla
in revenue records in respect of the land situated at Tahsil Atarra,
District Banda (UP). However, this mutation is also after death of
deceased and has been carried out without noticing the respondents
No.1 and 2 and, therefore, such mutation cannot be read to curtail the
rights of respondents No.1 and 2 in any manner. There is a service book
on record which mentions that the nominee in the service record is the
present respondent No.1 as wife.
12. The trial Court has disbelieved the service book on the ground
that no nomination form is attached to the service book. In the absence
of a nomination form signed by the employee, the service book
containing entries made by some employee of the Department, cannot
be said to be conclusive. However, the covering page of Ex.P-8 which
is the service book contains the nomination form signed by the
employee mentioning the name of respondent No.1 as nominee and
wife. The trial Court had skipped to see this material document to hold
that the employee had not nominated respondent No.1.
13. The trial Court had also taken an adverse view against the
respondents No.1 and 2 looking to the fact that despite mutation having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
9

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
been ordered in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records and the
fact having been intimated to the respondents No.1 and 2 by filing reply
in the year 2021 before the trial Court, the respondents No.1 and 2 have
not challenged the said mutation proceedings.
14. In respect to that, the respondent No.2 has entered the witness
box. Respondent No.2 is the adopted daughter and she has categorically
stated that the deceased originally belonged to Tahsil Atarra, District
Banda (UP), and looking to the bitterness between the respondents and
remaining family of the deceased i.e. his brothers and nephews, the
respondents No.1 and 2 have genuine apprehension to their life and the
limb and safety if they go to the native place of deceased Harikishore
Shukla.
15. Looking to the bitterness between the families and the respondent
No.1 having been left with only one daughter and that too adopted
daughter and she herself being in government service, she might have
taken a decision not to contest the question of succession in the family
land situated in Uttar Pradesh. That might be a decision of the
respondents No.1 and 2 but that does not mean that if the respondents
No.1 and 2 are not running to Uttar Pradesh to contest the question of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
10

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
mutation of ancestral land of Harikishore Shukla in Uttar Pradesh, then
they are not wife and daughter of Late Harikishore Shukla. Such a
presumption is totally contrary to law and it has rightly been reversed
by the appellate Court.
16. The appellate Court has also considered the deposition of the
present petitioner who stated that she was around 10-11 years of age at
the time of marriage and further stated that the first photograph in the
collage of photographs as Article-A is of her marriage. It can be seen
by this Court that the two persons in the first photograph of Article-A
are between 55-60 years of age and they cannot be said to be children
of 10 and 15 years of age respectively. Even otherwise, two persons
getting photographed at any point of time in any function together
cannot be conclusive proof of the marriage of the two persons. If that
presumption is made by the Courts, then the results would be
catastrophic and drastic. In the present times, when every person is
shutter hungry, it is very easy to click photographs in all possible poses,
which may be genuine photographs, and not deep-fake ones.
17. The deceased Harikishore Shukla expired at Panna and his
funeral having taken place at native place in Atarra, District Banda (UP)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
11

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
is only a natural phenomenon in Indian families where a person’s body
is taken to ancestral village for funeral rites. The nephew lighting the
funeral pyre is also common in Indian society when the deceased did
not have any son of his own. All these cannot be inferred to mean that
the deceased was married to a particular lady and not to a particular
lady.
18. The respondent No.1 is admittedly also in government service
and she was also working as a Lab Technician in the same college as
the deceased Harikishore Shukla. The respondent No.1 has given
detailed deposition as to the places she resided with the deceased
Harikishore Shukla and that deposition does inspire the confidence of
this Court, and moreover there is a nomination form filled up by the
deceased himself nominating the respondent No.1 as wife for family
benefit fund etc. which cannot be disbelieved after his death.
19. The documents of respondent No.2 who is the adopted daughter
have also been placed on record and she has received entire education
by declaring her father's name as Harikishore Shukla and these
documents are of the year 2006 onwards, which cannot be lightly
disbelieved. The respondent No.1 has a LIC policy in which she is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
12

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
named as nominee being wife of deceased Harikishore Shukla. Most
importantly, the adoption deed of respondent No.2 is on record which
categorically mentions that Harikishore Shukla and the respondent
No.1 have adopted the respondent No.2 at the age of 2 years on
17.10.1996 and this is a registered document of adoption executed
before the Sub-Registrar of Registration, Panna. This document Ex.D-
14 clearly mentions that Harikishore Shukla and the respondent No.7
are husband and wife and that they are willingly taking in adoption the
respondent No.2.
20. Looking to the documentary evidence on record which has been
rightly considered and evaluated by the appellate Court, it appears that
the deceased and the respondent No.1 were legally married husband
and wife and the defence of the respondent No.1 and 2 that present
applicant has been set up as an imposter only to grab the service benefits
of the deceased Harikishore Shukla because he did not leave any issue
of his own but only the adopted child apart from the respondent No.1
as wife who is also in government service, cannot be utterly
disbelieved.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21896
13

CIVIL REVISION No.725 of 2024
21. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere
in the well-reasoned order passed by the appellate Court. Though
detailed evaluation of evidence was not required in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction of this Court, but even upon re-valuation of the
entire evidence, as was suggested by the counsel for the petitioner, this
Court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed
by the appellate Court which is found to be justified and reasoned order.
22. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and
is hereby dismissed .

(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
18:18:17