Bombay High Court Allows Family Pension to Second Wife Despite Bigamous Marriage — Second Wife Entitled to Family Pension Under Maharashtra Civil Services Rules if First Wife Predeceased Employee. Court Holds That Marriage, Though Void Under Hindu Marriage Act, Does Not Disentitle Surviving Spouse to Family Pension.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of family pension by the Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) II, Nagpur, on the ground that her marriage to the deceased employee, Gulabrao Jamnik, was void under Section 5 read with Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it was contracted during the lifetime of his first wife, Mankarna. The petitioner claimed that she married Gulabrao after the death of Mankarna, but the respondents contended that Mankarna died on 11-12-1988, while Gulabrao had taken voluntary retirement on 30-04-1988, and the marriage took place during Mankarna's lifetime. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioner's assertion was incorrect, as Mankarna died after Gulabrao's retirement. However, the court noted that the first wife predeceased the employee, and the petitioner was the only surviving spouse at the time of Gulabrao's death on 17-02-2011. The court held that the marriage, though bigamous, was not void for the purpose of family pension, as the object of family pension is to provide social security to the family of the deceased employee. The court relied on the principle that a second wife, if she was the surviving spouse and had cohabited with the employee, is entitled to family pension. The court directed the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner from the date of the employee's death, with arrears and interest at 6% per annum, within three months.

Headnote

A) Family Pension - Entitlement of Second Wife - Bigamous Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 11, 17 - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, Rule 116 - The petitioner, second wife of a deceased government employee, was denied family pension on the ground that her marriage was void under Section 5 read with Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it was contracted during the lifetime of the first wife. The court held that since the first wife predeceased the employee and the petitioner was the only surviving spouse at the time of the employee's death, the marriage was not void ab initio for the purpose of family pension. The court directed the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner from the date of the employee's death, with arrears and interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 1-10)

B) Family Pension - Customary Marriage - Validity - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 5 - The court noted that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee was performed as per customs and was not disputed. The court held that the marriage, though contracted during the lifetime of the first wife, was not void for all purposes, especially when the first wife had predeceased the employee and the petitioner had cohabited with the employee for a long period and had children from the wedlock. (Paras 5-9)

C) Family Pension - Legitimacy of Children - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 16 - The court observed that the children born from the petitioner's wedlock with the deceased employee are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even if the marriage is void. The court held that denying family pension to the petitioner would be unjust and contrary to the object of providing social security to the family of the deceased employee. (Paras 8-9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the second wife of a government employee, whose marriage was contracted during the lifetime of the first wife, is entitled to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, when the first wife predeceased the employee and the second wife was the surviving spouse at the time of the employee's death.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 04-06-2014, and directed the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner from the date of the employee's death (17-02-2011) with arrears and interest at 6% per annum, within three months.

Law Points

  • Family Pension
  • Bigamous Marriage
  • Hindu Marriage Act
  • 1955
  • Section 5
  • Section 11
  • Section 17
  • Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
  • 1982
  • Rule 116
  • Widow Entitlement
  • Second Wife
  • Personal Law
  • Customary Marriage
  • Presumption of Marriage
  • Legitimacy of Children
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 150

Writ Petition No. 874 of 2017

2017-06-20

B.P. Dharmadhikari, Rohit B. Deo

Shri S.P. Panditkar for petitioner, Shri N.H. Joshi for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri A.M. Kukdey for respondent No.3

Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik

State of Maharashtra, The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) II, Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Yavatmal

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging refusal of family pension to the second wife of a deceased government employee on the ground that the marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the communication dated 04-06-2014 refusing family pension and direction to respondents to grant family pension with arrears and interest.

Filing Reason

The petitioner, Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik, was denied family pension by the Accountant General on the ground that her marriage to the deceased employee Gulabrao Jamnik was void under Section 5 read with Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it was contracted during the lifetime of his first wife Mankarna.

Previous Decisions

The communication dated 04-06-2014 from respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 refused family pension to the petitioner.

Issues

Whether the second wife of a government employee, whose marriage was contracted during the lifetime of the first wife, is entitled to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, when the first wife predeceased the employee and the second wife was the surviving spouse at the time of the employee's death.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that she married Gulabrao after the death of first wife Mankarna, and that the marriage was valid. She also argued that she was the only surviving spouse and entitled to family pension. Respondents argued that the marriage was void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it was contracted during the lifetime of the first wife, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to family pension.

Ratio Decidendi

A second wife, whose marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to the subsistence of a prior marriage, is entitled to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, if she was the surviving spouse at the time of the employee's death and the first wife predeceased the employee. The object of family pension is to provide social security to the family of the deceased employee, and denying it on technical grounds would be unjust.

Judgment Excerpts

The refusal of Family Pension is on the premise that Ramabai married the deceased employee Gulab Jamnik during the life time of the first wife one Mankarna and the marriage is null and void in view of the provisions of Section 5 read with Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The assertion that petitioner Ramabai married late Gulab after the demise of first wife Mankarna is obviously incorrect. The court held that the marriage, though bigamous, was not void for the purpose of family pension, as the object of family pension is to provide social security to the family of the deceased employee.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 874 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the communication dated 04-06-2014 refusing family pension. The court heard the parties and delivered judgment on 20-06-2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 5, Section 11, Section 16, Section 17
  • Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 116
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Chamber Summons to Lift Attachment of Third-Party Property in Execution of Arbitration Award. Mere Residential Address Not Sufficient to Attach Immovable Property Not Owned by Judgment Debtor Under Section 60 CPC.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Vodafone TDS Case — No Substantial Question of Law Arises. The court upheld the ITAT's order deleting disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on...