Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. Dige, J.
Smt. Uma Vijendra Wagh - Appellants
Versus
Rukhminibai Vijendra Wagh - Respondents
First Appeal No. 3921 Of 2016
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Succession Certificate - Family Pension - The court held that the second wife is not entitled to family pension and terminal benefits of the deceased, as the marital relations of the first wife with the deceased were subsisting till his death. The Full Bench Judgment established that family pension can be claimed by the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, and the second wife, if not legally wedded, would not be entitled to family pension.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the judgment granting succession certificate in favor of respondent nos.1 and 2, who were the wife and daughter of the deceased. The appellants objected to the issuance of the succession certificate, claiming that the first wife and daughter were not entitled to it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the marital relations of the first wife with the deceased were subsisting till his death, and the second wife was not entitled to family pension and terminal benefits. The trial Court's order allowing the application filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the second wife could claim family pension and terminal benefits of the deceased, considering the existence of a divorce deed between the first wife and the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Full Bench Judgment, which established that family pension can be claimed by the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, and the second wife, if not legally wedded, would not be entitled to family pension.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad [for short ‘the trial Court’] for granting succession certificate in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2.
Brief facts of the case are as under :
2. On 28th January, 2005, present respondent nos.1 and 2 filed petition for grant of succession certificate in respect of death of Vijendra Wagh and for getting benefits of employment of deceased Vijendra Wagh. The present appellants filed objection and objected for issuance of succession certificate in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Respondent no.1 is wife of deceased Vijendra Wagh and there was divorce deed between them in the year 1973. The marriage of appellant no.1 and Vijendra Wagh was solemnized and since the day of marriage, appellant no.1 resided with deceased Vijendra Wagh, out of the said wedlock, daughter i.e. appellant no.2 - Madhuri was born. After divorce, respondent no.1 filed maintenance petition against deceased Vijendra Wagh, she was receiving maintenance.
3. After hearing all the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed the order allowing the application filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 and granted succession certificate in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and appellant no.2.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was divorce deed between deceased Vijendra Wagh and respondent no.1 but the said divorce deed was not considered by the learned trial Court. The marriage between deceased Vijendra Wagh and appellant no.1 performed in the year 1974 since then they are residing together. The names of the appellants are recorded in the service book of the deceased Vijendra Wagh as nominee but this fact is not considered by the trial Court and arrived at a wrong conclusion on assumptions and presumptions, which caused injustice to the appellants. The Trial Court has not considered the Government Gazette dated 21.11.1974. The trial Court has not considered the evidence on record filed by the Government witnesses and the Government record, and arrived at a wrong conclusion. In the service Rules, the nominee appointed have meaning in law, in the service record the name of nominee cannot be changed on the basis of succession certificate, hence, requested to allow the appeal.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 that respondent no.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased Vijendra Wagh. Out of their wedlock, respondent no.2 was born. In the year, 1996, there was some matrimonial disputes between respondent no.1 and deceased Vijendra, therefore, respondent no.1 filed maintenance petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] wherein she was granted maintenance of Rs.400/- per month. The said petition was compromised on 13th October, 1996. The said order of maintenance is still in tact. This Court has dismissed the divorce petition of deceased Vijendra against respondent no.1. Thus, the marriage between respondent no.1 and deceased Vijendra was subsisting till his death. Respondent no.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased Vijendra. Hence, she is entitled for family pension of deceased Vijendra. Appellant no.1, being second wife, cannot claim family pension, hence, requested to dismiss the appeal. The learned counsel relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamalbai & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others in Writ Petition Nos.9933, 11256 and 12308 of 2016, decided on 31st January, 2019.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The issue involved in this appeal is whether second wife can claim family pension and terminal benefits of the deceased. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was divorce deed of the year 1973 between respondent no.1 and deceased Vijendra, which is 30 years old document. Due to the said divorce de
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the second wife is not entitled to family pension and terminal benefits of the deceased if she is not the legally wedded wife, as established ....
Important Point : A marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is void, and nomination for benefits does not grant legal heir status to the nominee.
A second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage is void, and nomination does not confer legal heir status.
The legally wedded wife of a deceased government servant is entitled to family pension, overriding prior nominations, and a succession certificate is not required for such claims.
Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certific....
Succession certificates recognize trustee roles and may be granted to spouses or nominees, even where second marriages may be contested, depending on cohabitation and evidence of nominee status.
The court affirmed that a widow, despite her marriage being void due to the subsistence of the husband's first marriage, is entitled to compassionate appointment and benefits as the deceased's nomine....
A legally wedded wife does not automatically inherit debts and securities over a cohabiting partner; both parties may have valid claims.
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
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
