2026:HHC:9877 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2772 of 2026 Decided on: 02.04.2026 Suman Devi … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.5. No notice issued to respondents No.6 and 7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Direct the respondents to release the due and admissible pensionary and other terminal benefits in favour of the petitioner in a time bound manner. b) Direct the respondents to pay interest at the prevailing market rate on the delayed payments.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that Shri Deepak Sharma, after divorcing his first wife, solemnized marriage with her on 26.12.2018. He passed away on 06.09.2025. Her prayer is for the release of family pension as well as other pensionary benefits, which have been denied to her on the ground that the deceased has entered the name of his son, born out from his first marriage, in the column of nominee in his service record. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allow2772ed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:9877 3. This is not all. In terms of the averments made in the petition, after the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Shri Deepak Sharma, the petitioner preferred a complaint against him under the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is also the contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition that the petitioner was held entitled for maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from late Shri Deepak Sharma. Shri Deepak Sharma filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the present petitioner, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide judgment dated 10.11.2025. 4. In light of the fact that Shri Deepak Sharma died on 06.09.2025, by no stretch of imagination, the Divorce Petition preferred by him could have been dismissed as withdrawn, though it could have been dismissed as abated. Learned Counsel, who was representing deceased- Shri Deepak Sharma, before the learned District Judge, was not having any Authority to withdraw the case. 5. Be that as it may, herein, in light of the facts which stand narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition should be best left to be adjudicated under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. This is for the reason that the petitioner will have to demonstrate that she indeed is legally wedded wife of deceased- Shri Deepak Sharma and in the course of the adjudication of all this, other persons have to be made parties to the proceedings. As there 3 2026:HHC:9877 are disputed questions of fact involved, obviously, they can be adjudicated by the Court in terms of the evidence that may be led by the parties. 6. Accordingly, this petition is closed with the observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the appropriate Court for grant of a Succession Certificate. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the legality of the marriage between the petitioner and late Shri Deepak Sharma and all these issues are to be decided by the appropriate Court in the appropriate proceedings. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 02, 2026 (Rishi)