Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, R.V. GHUGE, S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
Kamalbai and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 9933, 11256 and 12308 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2019
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 309, 13(1), 15(3) and 39 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 125 Hindu Marriage Act – Sections 5, 11 and 16 - Woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife - Second wife is entitled to claim family pension - Entitled for pension - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter family pension. Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of Pension Rules provides if there are widows family pension is to be distributed amongst surviving widows - Plain interpretation of these rules suggest that, if there are two or more widows, they are entitled for equal pension. If one of them dies, then her share should be distributed equal amongst the surviving widows - Learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in a case reported - Judgment of Division Bench of Court in a case of Union of India through General Manager, South East Central and another in Writ Petition said case pension rules applicable to railway employees – Held, Rules particularly Rules, 111, 112, 114, Clause (I) under Rule 111(5) amended by word wife was replaced by earlier part of the judgment and decision of the Apex Court in wherein it was considered woman in void marriage is not a widow concur with view expressed by my learned brother second wife in general parlance would not be entitled for family pension unless she is legally wedded wife - Second wife who is not legally wedded wife would not be entitled for family pension Rule 116 of Pension Rules - Second wife if is legally wedded wife would be entitled for family pension – Ordered Accordingly
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The entitlement to family pension under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, is primarily limited to women who are legally wedded wives of the deceased government employee. Women in void marriages, or those not recognized as legally wedded wives, are generally not entitled to family pension (!) (!) .
The definition of "family" in the rules explicitly includes only the legally wedded wife or wives, which excludes women in void marriages. This interpretation is reinforced by amendments replacing the term "wife" with "legally wedded wife" (!) (!) .
The word "where" in the relevant pension rule indicates that family pension payable to more than one widow is contingent upon the existence of multiple widows who are legally recognized as such. A woman in a void marriage cannot be considered a widow for the purpose of family pension benefits (!) .
The rules and their interpretation emphasize the importance of marriage being valid and recognized under personal law and statutory provisions. Marriage performed during the subsistence of a previous marriage, which is deemed void, disqualifies the woman from being recognized as a widow eligible for pension (!) (!) .
The pension rules have been historically interpreted to permit family pension sharing among multiple widows, but only if they are recognized as legal wives. Changes in the language of the rules and amendments aim to clarify that only legally wedded wives are entitled to such benefits (!) (!) .
The interpretation of "family" and "widow" is consistent across related rules on gratuity and family pension, emphasizing that only women who are legally wedded wives qualify for family pension benefits (!) .
The rules and their amendments aim to ensure that benefits are accorded in accordance with the law of marriage, which is governed by personal law. Women in void marriages, or those not legally recognized, are generally excluded from family pension entitlements (!) (!) .
The legislative intent and purpose behind the rules are to provide pension benefits to women who are legally married to the deceased government employee, aligning with the constitutional principles and personal law regulations (!) (!) .
The legal framework and judicial interpretation reinforce that the entitlement to family pension is based on the legality and validity of the marriage at the time of the employee's death. Women in void marriages do not qualify as widows for pension purposes (!) (!) .
The amendments and judicial pronouncements collectively aim to uphold the integrity of the pension scheme by ensuring that only those women who meet the legal criteria of marriage are entitled to pension benefits, thereby preventing claims based on void marriages (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or a detailed analysis of any specific aspect.
JUDGMENT :
S.V. Gangapurwala, J.
1. The matter is placed before this Full Bench upon the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The reference was made by the Division Bench of this Court referring the following issue to the full bench, "In cases to which, Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, apply whether the second wife is entitled to claim family pension?"
2. We had requested Mr. P.M. Shah, the learned senior advocate to assist the Court. He graciously agreed to our request.
3. Mr. Sapkal, learned advocate h/f Shri S.K. Mathpati, learned advocate for the petitioner led the arguments on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Irale Patil, the learned advocate also canvassed his submissions on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for petitioners canvassed following propositions:
A. Rule 116 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as to the "Pension Rules") provides for family pension. Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules provides that, if there are widows (more than one), the family pension is to be distributed amongst the surviving widows. The plain interpretation of these rules suggest that, if there are two or more widows, they are entitled for equal pension. If one of them dies, then her share should be distributed equal amongst the surviving widows. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in a case of Laxmibai Shripat Kumar Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad reported in 2004 (6) Bom.C.R. 774. So also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Bilaspura and another Vs. Smt. Jaywantabai Wd/o Ramrao Kewoo in Writ Petition No. 467 of 2014. In the said case pension rules applicable to the railway employees were interpreted and this Court has held that the Hindu Personal law may not be strictly interpreted on the anvil of the Constitution of India. In the said case, it was observed that, even though second marriage would be void as per Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, still that would not disable the widow out of the void marriage to be entitled for the family pension. The learned counsel also rely on the judgment of this Court in a case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others reported in 2015 (3) Mh. L.J. 813 and submits that, the second wife after the death of her husband is entitled for pension. It is held that, Rule 116 and its sub clauses are drafted with a definite object. The judgment in the case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others (supra) is confirmed by the Apex Court. Relying on the judgment in a case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others (supra) this Court in a case of Smt. Shakuntala W/o Gulabrao Jagtap Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 11839 of 2015 has also held that, the second wife would be entitled for the family pension under Rule 116 of the Pension Rules.
B. The learned counsel further submits that, if the appropriate legislature has passed an Act under Article 309 of the Constitution, the rules framed under the proviso will have effect subject to that act. But in absence of any act of the appropriate legislature on the matter, the rules made by the President or by such person as he may direct shall have effect. The rules must be in force. The learned counsel rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of B.S. Vadera Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 118.
C. The learned counsel submits that, when the literal interpretation of the rule is clear no addition or substitution of words is permissible. The Court would not innovate and amend or alter the statutory provision when the language is clear. The intention of the legislature is to be gather
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
