25.09.2026 Court No. 236 Item No. 21 Sandip W.P.A. 6126 of 2025 Uma Sarkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Ivan Roy, Mr. Nirupam Dutta …for the Petitioner. Mr. Asish Kr. Mukherjee, Mr. Sudipta Ghosh … for the State. Mr. S. N. Dutta …for the Union of India. Mr. Mir Anuruzzaman …for the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality. 1. Affidavit-of-service, filed by the petitioner in Court today, is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is the wife of one Palan Chandra Sarkar, who expired on January 10, 2025. During his lifetime, the said Palan Chandra Sarkar filed a matrimonial suit being M.S. 24 of 1996 before the 5th Additional District Judge, Alipore. By a judgment and order dated September 11, 2001, the Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, inter alia, passed the following order :- “In the above circumstances, I arrive at irresistible conclusion that the petitioner-Palan Sarkar has failed to establish his case and therefore, this is not a fit case for granting divorce by way of dissolving the marriage between himself and the respdt/wife. The points are accordingly disposed of. C. F. paid is correctly stamped. Hence, O r d e r e d that the Mat. Suit being No. 24/96 be and the same is dismissed on contest but in view of the circumstances without cost. The petitioner- husband be directed to go on depositing the same amount of alimony as he has been paying for the maintenance of the respondent and her children.” 3. The petitioner referred to page 48, which is the Death Certificate of said Palan Chandra Sarkar issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death), Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, wherefrom it appears that the name of Rita Sarkar/respondent no. 11 had been recorded as the spouse of said Palan Chandra Sarkar. According to the petitioner, such recording was erroneous. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, Municipality and the State are present. However, none appears for the respondent no. 11/Rita Sarkar in spite of service. 5. The petitioner, in order to ventilate her grievances, wrote a letter to the respondents including the respondent no. 9/ Registrar (Birth and Death) of the said Municipality. However, despite lapse of a considerable span of time, the said representation has not been considered by the respondents. 6. Under such circumstances, I direct the respondent no. 9 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated February 11, 2025 in the light of the judgment and order passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 24 of 1996 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no. 11 and to any other authority and/or interested person, if required, and pass an order in accordance with law. If it is found that the petitioner is the wife of the said Palan Chandra Sarkar (since deceased), the said Municipality shall take consequential steps and issue a fresh Death Certificate incorporating the name of the petitioner as the spouse of the said Palan Chandra Sarkar. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 2 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 3