Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to the entitlement of family pension following the death of a railway employee who had married twice. The employee, R. Ramesh Babu, died in harness on 04-05-2021 while working as Pointsman-I in South Western Railway. He was survived by his first wife (respondent No.1) and their two children (respondents 2 and 3), and also by his second wife (the petitioner) whom he had married in 1999 during the subsistence of the first marriage, and their daughter. After his death, the first wife sought settlement of dues and family pension, leading the Railways to insist on a declaratory decree due to the conflicting claim. Consequently, the first wife and children filed a suit (O.S.No.162/2021) before the Family Court seeking declaration that they are the legal heirs and entitled to all benefits, including family pension. In that suit, they filed an interim application (I.A.No.II) for release of family pension. The Family Court, by order dated 29-07-2022, directed that 50% of the family pension be paid to the first wife and children pending disposal of the suit, without deciding the second wife's claim. The second wife challenged this order through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that she alone was entitled to the entire family pension. The first wife and children argued that the second marriage was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and therefore the petitioner could not be considered a legally wedded wife entitled to family pension. The Railways, citing the governing rules, submitted that both widows were entitled to equal shares. The High Court, after examining Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which expressly provides for payment of family pension to more widows than one in equal shares, held that the rule squarely covered the situation. The court relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Union of India v. Jaywantabai, which, interpreting the same rule, held that a second wife, even if her marriage is void under Hindu law, is entitled to family pension under the service rules, as the rule envisages a situation of more than one widow. The court observed that the rule does not distinguish between legally wedded wife and a wife from a void marriage for the purpose of pension, and the intent is to prevent destitution. Thus, it concluded that the Family Court’s order directing 50% pension to the first wife and children was not erroneous, and the second wife also had an equal claim. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Family Pension - Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Where a deceased railway employee leaves behind more than one widow, family pension is payable in equal shares to all widows irrespective of the validity of marriage under personal law - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the family court's interim order directing 50% pension to the first wife and children, holding that the rule governs and the second wife also has a claim - Held that the order was not erroneous and the second wife is entitled to equal share in family pension (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order directing 50% of family pension to respondents 1 to 3 is erroneous and whether the claim of the petitioner for family pension is tenable?
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Family Court’s order directing 50% of the family pension to be paid to respondents 1 to 3.
Law Points
- Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules
- 1993 mandates equal shares of family pension to more than one widow
- entitlement under service rules is not affected by voidability of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955 Section 11
- interim order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC can direct payment of pension pending suit
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (12) 1
WRIT PETITION No. 15979 OF 2022 (GM-FC)
Madhukar Nadig, Md. Mujassim, A. Chandra Chud
Smt. Y. Jansi Rani, Ms. Monica, R. Sanjay (minor represented by mother Smt. Y. Jansi Rani), and The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Bengaluru Division, South Western Railway
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to an interim order of the Family Court directing payment of 50% family pension pending a suit for declaration of legal heirship and entitlements.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (second wife) sought to quash the order dated 29-07-2022 and claimed entitlement to the entire family pension.
Filing Reason
The Family Court directed 50% of the family pension to be paid to the first wife and her children despite the petitioner’s claim as a legally wedded wife, thereby aggrieving the petitioner.
Previous Decisions
The VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru passed an interim order on IA No.II in OS No.162/2021 on 29-07-2022, directing 50% of the family pension to respondents 1 to 3; the writ petitioner challenged that order.
Issues
Whether the order directing 50% of family pension to respondents 1 to 3 is erroneous and whether the claim of the petitioner for family pension is tenable?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that she alone was entitled to the entire family pension and the order releasing 50% to respondents 1-3 was erroneous.
Respondents 1 to 3 argued that the petitioner was not a legally wedded wife under the Hindu Marriage Act, as the second marriage was void, and family pension could be granted only to a legally wedded wife and her children.
The Railways (respondent 4) submitted that under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, pension was payable to both widows in equal shares, and no fault could be found with the petitioner’s claim for her share.
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 expressly provides that where family pension is payable to more than one widow, it shall be paid in equal shares. The validity of marriage under personal law does not affect the entitlement under this rule, and both widows are entitled to equal family pension.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule 75(7)(i)(a) deals with the situation of the kind as in the lis. Where family pension is payable to more widows then the family pension should be paid to the widows in equal share.
the Hindu Marriage Act treats the second marriage as void during subsistence of the first marriage. ... But the next question is whether such a second wife/widow, after the death of her husband, in this case, the railway employee, should be left to starve by giving all the pensionary and terminal benefits of his service to first wife only? ... we feel that the rule governing payment of family pension must be interpreted in the light of the object sought to be achieved
Procedural History
The deceased employee married the first respondent, and later married the petitioner in 1999 while the first marriage subsisted. He died in harness on 04-05-2021. On 17-05-2021, the first respondent claimed settlement of dues and family pension, leading the Railways to insist on a declaratory decree due to the conflicting claim. Respondents 1-3 filed suit OS No.162/2021 for declaration of legal heirship and entitlements, and filed IA No.II seeking release of family pension. On 29-07-2022, the Family Court directed 50% of family pension to be paid to respondents 1-3. The petitioner challenged this order via writ petition under Article 226, which was heard and dismissed on 20-12-2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 11, Section 5
- Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993: Rule 75
