1 2025:CGHC:26583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 537 of 2025  Smt. Sewti Bai W/o Late Hiraman Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Dawerghata, Tehsil - Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Jaanki Bai D/o Janakram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Dawerghata, Tehsil - Dabhra, District - Sakti (C.G.) 2. Assistant Director Pension Officer Office Of The Joint Director Funds And Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Treasury Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate along with Ms. Dimple Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23. 06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 22/2024 dated 10.03.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 19.09.2024 has been affirmed. 2 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned trial Court along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. The plaintiff pleaded that she is the second wife of Late Hiraman Sahu, who was a government teacher and died on 28.12.2021. It is further pleaded that she was staying along with her husband, and she has the right to receive the retiral dues of the deceased. It is further stated that the first wife of the deceased has also claimed right over the family pension. He would also submit that the petitioner had moved an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent authorities from making payment of family pension to the first wife of the deceased. The application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2024. The petitioner preferred an appeal, and the same has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife and a consent letter was given by the first wife in her favour. He would further submit that the document was submitted before the respondent authorities, but it was not honoured and the State authorities are willing to pay family pension to the first wife of the deceased. He would also submit that in the service records, the name of the second wife is mentioned. He would pray to allow the petition and set aside the orders passed the learned Courts below. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. To claim service benefits of the deceased employee, there should be a prima facie case along with evidence to prove the validity of the second marriage. It is not the case of the petitioner that the marriage performed 3 between the first wife and Late Hiraman Sahu was dissolved at any point of time during his lifetime; therefore, the contention made by the petitioner appears to be erroneous. 6. With regard to the irreparable injury, the Court has to weigh the potential of irreparable harm to the second wife if pension or other dues are not paid or disbursed. The balance of convenience of the first wife over-weighs the right of the second wife; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, until and unless the petitioner proves her valid marriage with the Late Hiraman Sahu, no order of temporary injunction can be passed; therefore, the learned Courts below rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner for temporary injunction. 7. Thus, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant