Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Chanda Hinglas Bharati, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 24.6.2013 by which the respondents stopped releasing family pension to her. The petitioner claimed to have married Hinglas Bharati on 3.4.1993, while his first wife Pushpa was alive. Hinglas Bharati died on 19.9.1999. The petitioner obtained a succession certificate from the Civil Court and applied for family pension under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The respondents initially granted pension from 2009 but later stopped it. The court examined the validity of the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It noted that Section 5(i) prohibits a marriage if either party has a living spouse, and Section 11 declares such marriages void. The court held that the petitioner's marriage was void ab initio, and she could not be considered a 'family' member under the Pension Rules. The court distinguished between the legitimacy of children under Section 16 and the status of the second wife. The petition was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to continue pension to the children if eligible.
Headnote
A) Family Pension - Entitlement of Second Wife - Void Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5(i), 11, 16 - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, Rule 116(6)(a)(i) - The petitioner, who married a Hindu man during the subsistence of his first marriage, claimed family pension after his death. The court held that such marriage is void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the second wife is not a 'family' member under the Pension Rules. The children born from the void marriage are legitimate under Section 16 but the petitioner cannot claim pension as a widow. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the stoppage of pension. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Hindu woman who marries a Hindu man during the subsistence of his marriage with his wife would be entitled to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 24.6.2013 stopping family pension to the petitioner is upheld. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the children for family pension in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Section 5(i) prohibits bigamy
- Section 11 declares void marriages contravening Section 5(i)
- Section 16 provides legitimacy of children but does not confer spousal status on second wife
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982
- Rule 116(6)(a)(i) defines family for pension purposes
- second wife not included as family member if marriage void under Hindu law
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (11) 38
Writ Petition No.1251/2015
Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, Prasanna B. Varale
Shri M. Ateeque for petitioner, Shri M. K. Pathan, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3
Smt. Chanda Hinglas Bharati
The State of Maharashtra, Joint Director, Health Services, Assistant Director, Health Services, Philaria Officer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the stoppage of family pension to the petitioner who claimed to be the second wife of a deceased government employee.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 24.6.2013 stopping family pension and a direction to continue payment.
Filing Reason
The respondents stopped releasing family pension to the petitioner on the ground that her marriage was void as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner had obtained a succession certificate from the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati. The respondents initially granted family pension from 2009 but stopped it by order dated 24.6.2013.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's marriage to Hinglas Bharati was valid under Hindu law given the subsistence of his first marriage.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that she was married to Hinglas Bharati on 3.4.1993 and had obtained a succession certificate, and that the respondents had initially granted pension.
The respondents argued that the marriage was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the first wife was alive, and therefore the petitioner was not a 'family' member entitled to pension.
Ratio Decidendi
A Hindu marriage contracted during the subsistence of an earlier marriage is void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The second wife is not a 'family' member under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and is not entitled to family pension. Children born from such void marriage are legitimate under Section 16 but the second wife cannot claim pension as a widow.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether a Hindu woman who marries a Hindu man during the subsistence of his marriage with his wife would be entitled to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is the question that falls for consideration in this writ petition.
The marriage of the petitioner with Hinglas Bharati was void in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The petitioner cannot be said to be a member of the family of Hinglas Bharati within the meaning of Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for family pension on 24.11.2011, which was initially granted from 2009. By order dated 24.6.2013, the respondents stopped the pension. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.1251/2015 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and disposed of on 26.11.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 5(i), 11, 16
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: 116(6)(a)(i)
