Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an application for a legal heirship certificate under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 filed by the first wife and her children of a deceased government servant. The second wife, whose marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage, challenged the denial of her inclusion as a legal heir. The trial court granted the certificate only to the first wife and her children, and the first appellate court partially modified it to include the children of the second marriage but not the second wife herself. The second wife then filed a civil revision application before the Bombay High Court, contending that under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, she was entitled to equal share in the family pension as a widow. The High Court examined whether Rule 116(6)(a)(i) confers an independent right to a second wife whose marriage is void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court held that the rule requires the employer to first determine payability of pension by reference to the personal law of the deceased. Since the second marriage was void, the applicant could not be considered a widow. Relying on earlier Division Bench decisions in Chanda Hinglas Bhaati v. State of Maharashtra and Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik v. State of Maharashtra, the court concluded that the pension rules must be interpreted in consonance with personal laws. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Family Pension - Rule 116(6)(a)(i), Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Interpretation - The phrase 'where the family pension is payable to more widows than one' is a condition precedent; the employer must first determine payability by applying the personal law of the deceased. If the second marriage is void under Hindu law, the second wife is not a 'widow' entitled to pension. Held, following Division Bench rulings that the applicant, a second wife during subsistence of first marriage, is not entitled to legal heirship certificate or family pension (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to receive pension in equal share with the other legal heirs, in terms of Rule 116 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The applicant, being the second wife whose marriage was performed during subsistence of the first marriage and thus void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not entitled to a legal heirship certificate or family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Law Points
- Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982 creates a condition precedent of payability determined by personal law
- second wife of void marriage not a widow for pension purposes
