Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76559-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 330 of 2025 Appellant :- District Basic Shiksha Adhikari And Another Respondent :- Smt. Gulnar And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bhupesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. (Ref: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application) 1. Heard. 2. Delay in filing the present appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to the present appeal. 3. Application stands allowed. Ref: Appeal 1. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner. She claims to be the second wife of the deceased employee who was the assistant teacher. The writ petitioner claimed marriage with the employee concerned on 20.1.1997. The authorities, however, have not examined the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that she was the second wife and the alleged divorce with the first wife was not recorded anywhere. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the concerned authority had rightly taken opinion from the district government counsel as opinion of an expert was needed to deal with the circumstances, particularly as personal Muslim law required examination. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has set aside the order only on the ground that opinion of a counsel was entirely relied upon for passing such order. It is urged that the authority can always take advice from its counsel and no exception can be taken to it. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, however, submits that even though the authority may take legal opinion in the matter but its decision has ultimately to be based on application of mind at its level. It is also submitted that the marriage was admittedly dissolved prior to solemnization of second marriage and the first wife never raised any objection during her lifetime. The first wife has also died in 2015. It is, therefore, submitted that the claim of the writ petitioner requires examination in light of the facts noticed above. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the materials on record. 5. From the facts placed before the Court is does not appear that any contest was ever brought by the first wife objecting to her divorce with the deceased employee. No provision of law is otherwise shown in which dissolution of marriage by way of talaq requires any order to be passed by the competent court of law. Undisputedly the factum of talaq dates back to the year 1996. The deceased teacher had intimated the authorities about such fact and had also got name of the writ petitioner recorded as his nominee in the service records. Once that be so, the authority concerned was required to take an appropriate decision in the matter. 6. We find substance in the view taken by the learned Single Judge that merely by referring to the legal opinion the authorities could not have decided the matter, and he was required to independently apply mind on his part to the order passed. Even though the authorities may avail legal advice from the counsel but the decision has to be of the authority. Since such is not the case here, as such the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires no interference. In the facts of the case, however, we do not think it necessary to impose any cost upon the appellant and to such extent the order of learned Single Judge stands modified. The authority concerned shall take appropriate decision in respect of claim of the writ petitioner, within a period of two months. 7. Special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad