Bombay High Court

SMT. SANJIVANI BHAGWAN PATILversusUNION OF INDIA THRU CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPT. OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL) AND ANAR

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The petition was dismissed for default as the petitioner failed to appear and her claim lacked merit due to the prior settlement and the nature of the second marriage.

Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Sanjivani Bhagwan Patil, claimed to be the second wife of the deceased Bhagwan Patil and sought to quash a 2018 order and a 2017 application concerning pension benefits. She had executed a release deed in 2004, receiving Rs.75,000 and waiving rights to property and pension, but later entered a settlement with the deceased's children to receive his pension after his death in 2013. The respondents, the Union of India and the Department of Accounts, contested the claim, noting that the children of the first wife were over 25 and thus ineligible for pension benefits. The court observed that the petitioner’s marriage to a man already married rendered the petition without merit and that the petitioner failed to appear for hearing despite being served. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for default.

Issues considered

What is the legal effect of a settlement and release deed executed by a claimant on subsequent claims to pension benefits?
Does a second marriage to a person already married affect the petitioner’s standing to claim pension benefits?
Can the petitioner’s failure to appear in court justify dismissal of the writ petition?

Subjects

pension benefits
settlement deed
second marriage
default judgment
writ petition
civil procedure

Judgment

                                                         3-WP-1144-2019 (C) (2).docx


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 1144 OF 2019
Smt. Sanjivani Bhagwan Patil                                  ...Petitioner
              VERSUS
Union Of India Thru Chief Secretary,
Dept. Of Accounts (postal) And Anr                        ...Respondents
                              ——————
None for the petitioner.
Adv. R.S. Alange a/w Vijay Killedar for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. A.V. Ingle S.S PO Sangli is present.
Mr. Nishant B., Asst. Chief Accounts Officer is present.
Mr. S. Gopalkrishan, (through V.C.) Asst. Chief Accounts Officer
(Pension).
                              ——————

                                        Coram :      RAJESH S. PATIL &
                                                     ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

                                        Date     :   SEPTEMBER 7, 2026.

P. C. :

1.        On 2 September 2026, the following order was passed in the

proceedings:

                “1. The present writ petition has been filed by the
                petitioner seeks the relief of quashing and setting aside
                the order / communication dated 2 July 2018 and
                application dated 29 April 2017 to be allowed.
                2. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is
                called out. Even on the earlier occasions, i.e. 28 April
                2026 and 17 August 2026, none appeared on behalf of the
                petitioner. Officer remarks show that the petitioner has
                been duly served”.



2.        In the present Petition, it is the case of the Petitioner that she



Rushi                                   1 of 3
                                                   3-WP-1144-2019 (C) (2).docx


married the deceased Bhagwan Patil in the year 1978. Admittedly, at

that time, Bhagwan Patil was already married to a lady named Kusum.

During the lifetime of Bhagwan Patil, when he was in service of

Respondent No.1, there was a settlement between petitioner and

Bhagwan Patil himself, wherein the parties entered into a settlement

and the present Petitioner, whose claim is that she is the second wife,

executed a release deed in the year 2004. By the said release deed, in

paragraph nos. 5 and 6, the present Petitioner admitted that she had

received a sum of Rs.75,000/- in cash and that she was not claiming

any right in any other properties of Bhagwan Patil. She further agreed

that she would not claim any right in the pensionary benefits of

Bhagwan Patil. Subsequently, the said Bhagwan Patil, who was in

service of Respondent No. 1 (Post Office), died in the year 2013.

3.      Thereafter, the children of Bhagwan Patil from his first wife and

the present Petitioner, who claims to be the second wife (and there

being no children born to Bhagwan Patil and the Petitioner), arrived at

a settlement whereby it was agreed that the pensionary benefits of

Bhagwan Patil would be received by the present Petitioner.



4.      It is pertinent to note that, by that time, the children of the first

wife of Bhagwan Patil had already attained the age of 25 years.


Rushi                                2 of 3
                                                   3-WP-1144-2019 (C) (2).docx


Therefore, they were not eligible to receive any pensionary benefits.

5.      In our view, the fact remains that, during the lifetime of the first

wife, Bhagwan Patil married for the second time, as per the claim

made by the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, the present Petition

has no merit.

6.      Earlier on 2 September 2026 none appeared for the petitioner,

even today none appears on behalf of the Petitioner when the matter

is called out.

7.      Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed for default.




(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)                          (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




Rushi                               3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…