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