2025:HHC:9837 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 177 of 2022 Date of decision: 1 .4 .202 5 Virender Singh & Another. …Appellants. Versus Sarishta Devi & Another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants. Mr.Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.Rajinder K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Tarun Brakta, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Appellants have approached this Court assailing judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed in Succession Act Petition No. 03/2011, titled as Sarishata Devi Vs. General Public and others, whereby Succession Certificate has been issued in favour of Sarishata Devi in respect of family pension after death of her husband Harbans on 8.7.2008, who was getting pension from the CRPF. 2. It is claim of the appellants that Sarishata Devi was not legally wedded wife of deceased Harbans Singh and, therefore, she is not entitled to receive any family pension after death of Harbans Singh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:9837 FAO No. 177 of 2022 3. To substantiate the plea that she was legally wedded wife of Harbans Singh, respondent Sarishata Devi has placed on record application Criminal Petition No. 403-IV/98 filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C (Ex. P-9), reply thereto (Ex. P-7) and final order dated 27.9.2000 (Ex. P-8) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Petition No. 403-IV/98, titled Sarishata Devi Vs. Harbans Singh, whereby respondent Sarishata Devi was awarded an amount of 500/- per month as maintenance allowance payable by her ₹ husband Harbans Singh. 4. In application (Ex. P-9) respondent Sarishata Devi had claimed herself as legally wedded wife of Harbans Singh for solemnization of marriage on 12.2.1997 with Harbans Singh as per Hindu rites, customs and usage in presence of relatives and brotherhood. 5. In reply (Ex. P-7) to the application (Ex. P-9) Harbans Singh had though objected the application but only on the ground that Sarishata had filed the application without any sufficient cause or reason by refusing to live with him. However claim of Sarishata Devi regarding her marital status as legally wedded wife of Harbans Singh, stated in para 1 of the application (Ex. P-9) was admitted to be correct by Harbans Singh. 2 2025:HHC:9837 FAO No. 177 of 2022 6. Appellants Virender Singh @ Sunny and Narinder Singh @ Vikram, who infact are nephews of Harbans Singh are claiming themselves entitled to succeed the estate of deceased Harbans Singh. 7. Narinder Singh @ Vikram had appeared before the Magistrate as RW-1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he and Virender Singh @ Sunny were not sons of Harbans Singh. He expressed his ignorance about filing of application (Ex. P-9) by respondent Sarishata Devi under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and decision (Ex. P-8) therein. 8. Appellants have also placed on record document Mark-X received from Deputy Commandant for DIG, GC, CRPF, Khatkhati wherein name of wife of Harbans Singh is mentioned as Sunita Devi. However, nothing has been brought on record by the appellants that who is Sunita Devi or Shrishata Devi is not Sunita Devi. This plea of the appellants is also rebutted by respondent Sarishata Devi by placing on record document regarding authorization of family pension dated 3.11.2010 and 6.1.2011 wherein name of wife of Harbans has been written as Sarishata Devi @ Sunita Devi which indicates that Sarishata Devi and Sunita Devi are one and the same person. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that a Civil Suit is pending between the parties, wherein Sarishata Devi has assailed the Will being claimed by appellants to be executed by Harbans and in that suit in written statement appellants have mentioned 3 2025:HHC:9837 FAO No. 177 of 2022 that name of wife of Harbans is Sneha Kumari. However, again who is Sneha Kumari is not described. Copy of written statement has also not been exhibited by the appellants in their evidence. Therefore, appellants can not be permitted to place reliance upon a document which is neither an attested copy of written statement nor has been marked or exhibited in evidence. 10. So far as suit between the parties with respect to Will claiming property of Harbans is concerned, the order passed in present matter shall have no bearing thereon, as the succession certificate was applied by respondent Sarishata Devi only with respect to family pension of deceased Harbans Singh, for which even otherwise, for attaining age of majority and also being sons of brother of Harbans Singh, appellants are not entitled. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 1st April, 2025 Judge. (Keshav) 4