1 CGHC010495202025 2026:CGHC:30749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 310 of 2025 Anita W/o Late Jaiprakash Aged About 31 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Subhash Nagar, House No. 923, Charcha Colliery, Ward No. 05, Nagar Palika Shivpur, Charcha, Post- Charch, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Varsha Singh D/o Late Jaiprakash Aged About 21 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, House No. 923, Charcha Colliery, Ward No. 05, Nagar Palika Shivpur, Charcha, Post- Charch, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ritu Singh D/o Late Jaiprakash Aged About 19 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, House No. 923, Charcha Colliery, Ward No. 05, Nagar Palika Shivpur, Charcha, Post- Charch, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager S.E.C.L. Charcha Colliery (R.O.) Post- Charcha, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur Area, Post Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Regional Labour Commissioner (Head Office S.E.C.L.) C.M.P.F. Office, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Branch Manager Bhartiya State Bank Branch Charcha, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Fuleshwari W/o Late Kishun Singh R/o Charcha Colliery, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 7 : Mr. Shashikesh Yadav, Advocate. 2 For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. This civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by Principal District Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/2024 upholding the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) in Succession Case No. 07/2021 (Anita & others Vs. Varsha Singh & others), whereby learned trial Court declined to accept the applicant, as wife of late Jaiprakash and passed order in favour of respondents No. 1, 2 and 7, who are children and mother of deceased /employee – Jaiprakash, entitling them to receive amount of Coal Mines Provident Fund ( for short, “CMPF”) of late Jaiprakash. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that applicant – Anita alongwith two children of late Jaiprakash namely, Ku. Reena Singh and Ku. Shalini Singh had filed application under Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity, “Act, 1925”) for getting succession certificate to receive an amount of Rs. 5,55,598/- deposited in CMPF of late Jaiprakash. It is further contended that applicant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the fact that after death of first wife of Jaiprakash, namely Gouri Singh on 05.02.2012, he entered into a second marriage with applicant – Anita in the month of May, 2016, thereafter, they were residing together as husband & wife for about 5 years, but due to being infected with Covid-19, Jaiprakash expired on 07.05.2021 during service period. He further submits that 3 in the applicant's various government documents like Aadhaar card, Voter ID card, and ration card, her name has been mentioned as the wife of the late Jaiprakash, which has also been supported by witnesses, despite that learned both the courts below did not accept those evidence/documents, which is against the law. Hence, he prays that revision may be admitted for hearing. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 7 would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below, therefore, impugned orders passed by both the courts below do not call for any interference. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4/SECL while supporting the order passed by both the courts below would submit that Jaiprakash was an employee of SECL, he died due to being infected with Covid- 19, Jaiprakash while in service. He further submits that late Jai Prakash had filled the name ‘Gauri Singh’ as his wife in his service records, and the applicant’s name is nowhere recorded as Jai Prakash’s wife in his service records. 5. Counsel for other respondents would submits that they are formal party in the instant civil revision. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From perusal of the orders passed by both the courts below, it appears that there is concurrent finding recorded by it. To substantiate her contention, the applicant has filed documents i.e. Aadhaar Card, Ration Card, Voter ID card, in which name of late Jaiprakash is said to be mentioned as her husband. However, since the information contained therein was provided by the applicant herself, therefore, contents of those documents cannot be held conclusive proof of relationship between the parties mentioned in those documents. 4 8. During course of submission, learned counsel for the applicant referring to the case of Vidyadhari & others Vs. Sukhrana Bai & others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 238, would submit that in cases pertaining to the Succession Certificate, all rituals of marriage are not required to be proved. He stated that both parties belonged to the 'Gond community', and therefore, Hindu rituals are not followed for marriages within the 'Gond community'. Even if aforesaid contention of the applicant is accepted, despite that according to the applicant herself, she had performed marriage with late Jaiprakash in Durga Temple at village Patna, District Koria as per social customs. Since Hindu customs do not apply to the 'Gond' community, the claim of having been married in a Durga temple significantly discredit the petitioner's version that she is the legally wedded wife of the late Jaiprakash. 9. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that applicant has failed to prove by adducing reliable evidence that she is legally wedded wife of late Jaiprakash, which does not call for any interference of this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of both lower courts. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 11. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Sd/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.23 15:47:40 +0530