second wife- Shaini Devi has no right to the receive monetory benefits on the basis of such void marriage. = we are of the opinion that during the subsistence of the first marriage, second marriage is void and the second wife- Shaini Devi has no right to the receive monetory benefits on the basis of such void marriage. The plaintiff- appellant herein as well as defendant No.9-Pinki are entitled to the service/retiral benefits of the deceased.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4263/2019
[@ SLP [C] NO.13045/2018]
PHOOLMA DEVI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BIKRAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal arises out of the judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
in RSA No.4171 of 2015 dated 11.01.2018.
Brief facts of the case are that deceased-Parveen
Singh had joined the service of Punjab State Electricity
Board as a Khalasi at Bhatinda, Punjab on 18.10.1972 and
his services were regularized on 18.04.1975.
In the year 1974, the appellant-Phoolma Devi got
married to Parveen Singh and resided at the native village
of her husband at Khand, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. On
07.05.1981, a daughter Pinki was born to her.
On 25.05.2009, Parveen Singh died while he was on
duty and working at Ropar, Punjab. After his death, the
appellant came to know that her husband, during the
subsistence of their marriage had contracted another

2
marriage with respondent No.2-Shaini Devi who was residing
with him in the allotted Government quarter in Ropar,
Punjab.
The appellant sent a representation to the Punjab
State Electricity Board, Chief Engineer, GGSSTP, Ropar
claiming payment of death and retiral benefits to her.
When no steps were taken, being aggrieved from the
inaction of the concerned authorities for disbursing the
payment of death claim and all retiral benefits, the
appellant filed a Civil Suit No.RT-RT-52 of 18.02.2010 in
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rupnagar, Punjab
seeking declaration to the effect that the appellant and
proforma respondent No.8 herein-defendant No.9 being legal
heirs and entitled to receive all the monetary benefits
accrued due to death of Parveen Singh to the extent of �
share and further praying for the relief of mandatory
injunction directing the respondent No.4 to 7 to pay all
the service benefits to the appellant and respondent No.8.
The trial Court vide order and judgment dated
28.11.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.RT-RT-52 allowed the
prayer made by the appellant and concluded that the
appellant was the first wife of Parveen Singh and Pinki was
their daughter and thus they were entitled to receive the
monetary benefits.
The decision of the trial Court was challenged before
the Additional District Judge. Vide order dated 28.11.2014
in Civil Appeal No.8/4.1.2014 the appeal filed by

3
respondent No.1 to 3 herein was dismissed and the order of
the trial Court was upheld.
In appeal, the High Court vide judgment and order
dated 11.01.2018 in RSA No.4171 of 2015 disposed of the
appeal of respondent NO.1 to 3. Hence the appeal.
Admittedly, Phoolma Devi is the first legally wedded
wife of the deceased Parveen Singh. The plaintiff filed a
suit for seeking declaration to the effect that she and
defendant No.9-Pinki, her daughter, are entitled to receive
all the monetory benefits accrued on the death of Parveen
Singh from defendant Nos.2 to 5. Defendant No.6-Shaini Devi
claimed marriage with the deceased employee during the
survival of the first marriage with the plaintiff-appellant
Phoolma Devi. The marriage of the deceased employee with
Phoolma Devi had not been dissolved.
By virtue of the fact that in certain nomination
papers, the name of Shaini Devi was mentioned, dispute
arose with respect to the dues payable by defendant Nos.2
to 5 i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board and others where
the deceased was in employment.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the opinion that during the subsistence of the first
marriage, second marriage is void and the second wife-
Shaini Devi has no right to the receive monetory benefits
on the basis of such void marriage. The plaintiff-
appellant herein as well as defendant No.9-Pinki are
entitled to the service/retiral benefits of the deceased.

4
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
However, this determination would not affect any
other property dispute, if any, between the parties.
��������.J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
��������.J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2019.

5
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13045/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2018
in RSA No.4171/2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh)
PHOOLMA DEVI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BIKRAM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.72793/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. )

Date : 24-04-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Hussain Syed Mehdi, Adv.
Mr. R.S. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Shukla, AOR
Mr. Rushi Khan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Zehra Khan, Adv.
Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR

Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR

      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

[signed order is placed on the file]