2025:JHHC:29606 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 308 of 2024 ----- 1. Saryu Prasad 2.Yamuna Prasad, both sons of late Bhushan Chandra Prasad, R/o Hariadih, P.O Kalyanpur, P.S. Barbadih, District- Dhanbad ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having office at Court More, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 2.The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad 3.The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office, Dhanbad 4.Chief Accountant General of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Govindpur Branch, Govindpur, Dhanbad 6.Kheria Devi, R/o Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad ------ Respondent(s) ….. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to G.A.-IV For the Resp-AG : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate For the Resp-Bank : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp No.6 : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kumar Pasari, Advocate …...... 09 / 24.09.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying therein to stop the family pension, which is being paid to Kheria Devi (respondent No.6), as according to these petitioners, she is not a family member of the deceased. 3. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioners have raised the dispute stating that this respondent No.6 cannot be married wife of late Bhushan Chandra Mahato, who is the father of these two petitioners. He submits that respondent No.6 was earlier married to Vijay Mahato who died and thereafter she married to Kali Ram Mahato, who also died in the year, 2005, but surprisingly the petitioners claimed that she is married to the father of the deceased much before that in the year, 2002. On these grounds, he submits that respondent No.6 cannot be said to be the legally married wife of the deceased- Bhushan Chandra Mahato (father of these petitioners). 4. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 denies the aforesaid submission and submits that she got married with father of these petitioners on 22.07.2002, after the death of the first wife of Bhushan Chandra Mahato, who died on 15.11.2001. Since the marriage of respondent No.6 with Bhushan Chandra Mahato was after the death of his first wife it cannot be said that the marriage is illegal. He also submits that in the pension payment order and in all other documents the name of respondent No.6 appears thus, the pension was rightly been given to her by the authorities. It is also submitted that only after this writ petition was filed, the payment of pension has been stopped from August, 2024. 5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank admit that the respondent No.6 was paid pension till August, 2024 and thereafter the same has now stopped. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that the entire dispute which has been raised in this writ petition revolves around the status of respondent No.6. These petitioners vehemently dispute the status of respondent No.6 to be illegally married second wife of their father, which the respondent No.6 refuted. This issue as to whether the respondent No.6 is the legally married wife of Bhushan Chandra Mahato or not cannot be decided in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This case has to be decided based on oral, documentary and other evidences as it involves complex question of facts. This Court thus, cannot enter to those disputed question of facts. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, the same is dismissed. 7. Petitioners are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for deciding the issue as raised by them. 8. It is made clear that the State-authority and Bank will resume the pension of respondent No.6 immediately and will pay the arrears also which will finally be dependent on the final order passed by the Civil Court, if at all approached by these petitioners. The same payment should be made within two weeks from today as this order is passed in presence of learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Bank and learned counsel for the respondent- Accountant General. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 24th September, 2025 R.S.