1. Widow of government servant appointed under rehabilitation scheme — Termination of services — Dispute over widow status and truthfulness of affidavit. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 856
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
JETHI DEV1
Versus
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER.
Advocates appeared:
Anil Nag and Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant; Dr N.M. Ghatate, Senior Advocate (Ms Pramit Saxena and S.V. Deshpande, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Advocates:
Anil Nag, N.M.GHATATE, Pramit Saxena, RAJIV SINGH, S.V.DESHPANDEY
Anil Nag, N.M.GHATATE, Pramit Saxena, RAJIV SINGH, S.V.DESHPANDEY
Living with another person without a legally solemnized marriage does not disqualify a woman from being considered a widow. Therefore, claiming widow status for rehabilitation benefits is not a false statement if no legal marriage was solemnized.
Headnote:
Government Servant Died - Widow Claim For Employee - Her Services Were Terminated - This appeal by special leave arises from judgment and decree of High Court of Himachal Pradesh - Admitted facts are that when Om Dass, a government servant died in harness, a prayer was made to rehabilitate one of dependents - His widow, appellant herein, laid claim for appointment as a Class IV employee and was so appointed - When her services were terminated, she filed Suit – Held, In view of fact that no legally solemnised marriage exists, she is not incorrect in stating that she is widow of Om Dass - It is also revealed that since they are members of joint family, her statement about dependence is not false - If these two facts are excluded, there is no other ground to disentitle her to claim for benefit of appointment as per rehabilitation scheme - Accordingly, court hold that High Court was not right in reversing decree of trial court - Decree of trial court is restored - However, appellant will be entitled to back wages only, date on which suit was decreed – Appeal Allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appellant ceased to be a widow and made false statements regarding her marital status and dependence to obtain employment under a rehabilitation scheme. (Para 2 , 5 )
3. Absence of a legally solemnized marriage with another person does not strip a woman of her status as a widow or render her claim of dependence false. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. A woman remains a widow for the purpose of rehabilitation benefits if no legally solemnized marriage has taken place after the death of her husband. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed — Trial court decree restored — Back wages granted from the date of the original decree. (Para 6 )
6. Does living with another man after a husband's death automatically terminate widow status for legal benefits?
No. If no legally solemnized marriage takes place, the woman is not incorrect in stating she is the widow of the deceased. (Para 5 )
7. Does the birth of a child from a non-solemnized relationship affect the legal status of a widow claiming rehabilitation benefits?
The court held that since no legally solemnized marriage existed, the appellant remained the widow of the deceased employee despite living with another man and having a child. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Does membership in a Hindu joint family support a claim of dependence for rehabilitation schemes?
Yes, the court observed that since the parties were members of a joint family, the statement regarding dependence was not false. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1993 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSANo. 261 of 1992. Admitted facts are that when Om Dass, a government servant died in harness, a prayer was made to rehabilitate one of the dependents. His widow, the appellant herein, laid the claim for appointment as a Class IV employee and was so appointed. When her services were terminated, she filed Suit No. 6 of 1988 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mandi, H.P. and the Chief Judge by the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1989 decreed the suit. On appeal, it was confirmed. But in the second appeal, the High Court reversed the decree primarily on the ground that in the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Board revealed that the appellant had married Chandermani, the brother of Om Dass, and she concealed the factum of marriage and the birth of a daughter. Therefore, she is not a widow of Om Dass, the deceased employee. It was also found that she gave a false affidavit. Consequently, she is not entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation scheme.
3. The question is whether the appellant had made any false statement. It is clear from the written statement filed by the respondent in the trial court, enclosing the enquiry report submitted by SDO(C) Chachlot, that the appellant and her husband Om Dass were living as members of the Hindu joint family with Chandermani, her brother-in-law, and other members. On From the Judgment and Order dated 22-10-1993 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in R.S.A. No. 261 of 1992enquiry, it was also revealed that the marriage between Chandermani and the appellant was not solemnised and a child was bore to the latter.
4. Under these circumstances, three crucial facts emerge. One, Chandermani, Om Dass, the appellant and other members were living together as members of the Hindu joint family. Second, Om Dass, the government servant, died in harness. Third, it would appear that after the demise, though the appellant was living with Chandermani, no legally solemnised marriage took place. In other words, they were living together as man and woman and a child was born to them.
5. The question which, therefore, emerges is whether the appellant made any false statement and whether she ceased to be the widow of Om Dass. In view of the fact that no legally solemnised marriage exists, she is not incorrect in stating that she is the widow of Om Dass. It is also revealed that since they are the members of the joint family, her statement about the dependence is not false. If these two facts are excluded, there is no other ground to disentitle her to claim for the benefit of appointment as per the rehabilitation scheme. Accordingly, we hold that the High Court was not right in reversing the decree of the trial court and the appellate court and dismissing the suit.
6. The appeal is allowed. The decree of the trial court is restored. However, the appellant will be entitled to back wages from 30-11-1989 only, the date on which the suit was decreed. No costs.
For Citation: 1995(6) SCC 61
