JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 06.11.1970 and retired on 11.8.1988. His first wife passed away, and he got engaged with the 3rd respondent in May 1988. After the engagement ceremony was conducted between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, he registered the name of the 3rd respondent in his service records as his wife. But, the marriage, as decided, has not been conducted and the petitioner married another person named Ushakumari V.B. Ext.P1 is the copy of the marriage certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent, requesting to make necessary corrections in his service documents by substituting the name of Ushakumari V.B as his wife in place of the 3rd respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P3. A perusal of Ext.P3 would show that the petitioner had not produced Ext.P1 along with Ext.P2 application. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P4, the notarized
2
affidavit executed by Smt. Preethi S., the 3rd respondent, stating that she had married another person named Sunil and has no objection in endorsing the name of Smt. Ushakumari V.B., in the service records of the petitioner. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or orders directing the 2nd respondent to publish the marriage of the petitioner and to endorse the name Ushakumari V.B., D/o Bhaskaran V.K., Valiyakalayil, Chittar, Pathanamthitta, Kerala as the legally wedded wife of the petitioner in his service documents and to grant all his benefits authorised by the petitioner.
ii) To direct the 2nd Respondent not to insist the petitioner to produce the decree of divorce or any affidavit regarding divorce of petitioner from Smt. Preethi.
2. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records.
3. It is evident that Ext.P3 was passed without looking into Ext.P1 marriage certificate issued by the competent authority. In that view of the matter Ext.P3 stands quashed. There will be a direction to the competent officer of the 2nd respondent to
3
reconsider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of Exts.P1 and P4 and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously, in any event, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI ,
JUDGE
NS
4