1 CGHC010112162025 2026:CGHC:32255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 88 of 2025 1 - Narmada Devi W/o Late Devi Singh Maravi Aged About 58 Years 2 - Rahul Singh Maravi S/o Late Devi Singh Maravi Aged About 35 Years Both are R/o Village - Sakti Chowki, Banki, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - Premabai W/o Late Devi Singh Maravi Aged About 62 Years 2 - Pramod S/o Late Devi Singh Maravi Aged About 40 Years 3 - Vinod S/o Late Devi Singh Maravi Aged About 38 Years 4 - Manoj S/o Late Devi Singh Maravi Aged About 36 Years 5 - Manohar S/o Late Devi Singh Maravi Aged About 34 Years 2 All are R/o Back Of Manoranjan Mandir, Banki, Thana And Post - Banki, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6 – Manager S.E.C.L., Bagdeva Project, Post - Sutrra, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 7 – Personnel Manager, SECL, Bagdeva Project, Post-Sutrra, Tahsil- Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG) 8 - State Bank Of India Branch - Banki, Mogara, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 9 - Public In General, whenever Related To 10 - Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund, Near Sarkanda Police Station, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For the respective respondents : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Ms. Swati Agrawal and Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocates. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (28th July, 2026) Heard on admission. 02. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that it has been proved by the applicants that applicant No.1 Narmada Devi is second wife of Late Devi Singh Maravi and applicant No.2 Rahul Singh Maravi 3 is their son, despite that both the Courts below have rejected the application filed by the applicants under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Hence he prays that this revision may be admitted for hearing. 03. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5 would submit that there is a categorical finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that during subsistence of marriage of Late Devi Singh Maravi with respondent No.1 Premabai, he had allegedly kept applicant No.1 Narmada Devi but she cannot be termed as his legally wedded wife. It has also been observed by both the Courts below that Late Devi Singh Maravi had kept applicant No.1 Narmada Devi as his wife since 1993 but prior to that applicant No.2 Rahul Singh Maravi had born in the year 1988. Thus, Rahul Singh Maravi was not son of Late Devi Singh Maravi. Being so, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application u/s 372 of Indian Succession Act filed by the applicants. 04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed by the parties including the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. 05. There is a concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that applicant No.1 Narmada Devi was not legally wedded wife of Late Devi Singh Maravi and applicant No.2 Rahul Singh Maravi had born in 4 the year 1988 i.e. prior to alleged second marriage of Late Devi Singh Maravi with applicant No.1 Narmada Devi. This fact gets support from the documents filed by the applicants themselves i.e. voter ID card, Adhar card etc. Further, it has also been observed by learned trial Court that in service record of Late Devi Singh Maravi, names of his legally wedded wife Premabai (respondent No.1) and their sons (respondents No. 2 to 5) have been recorded. Having considered the aforesaid fact, this Court is not inclined to admit the instant revision. Accordingly, this revision petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, thus, dismissed. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.07.28 15:18:52 +0530