The legal requirements for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, the criminal and disciplinary implications of bigamous marriages by government servants, and the importance of protecting the welfare of spouses under the Family Pension Scheme.

JUDGMENT :

The order dated 27.07.2015, issued by the respondent / Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, stating that the writ petitioner has to produce the valid decree of divorce, if any obtained from the competent Court of law, for the purpose of entering the name of the second wife as a nominee in the service records and pension book, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The writ petitioner, who had served as Jail Superintendent in Sub Jail, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, was allowed to retire from service on 31.10.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner got married with one A.Gracia Gnanamani, D/o. M.G. Adaikaladas on 09.02.1979. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born, named as Victor Daniel Raj. On account of certain misunderstanding and difference of opinion, the said A.Gracia Gnanamani left the matrimonial home and started living separately.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that in the presence of their parents and by way of mutual consent, which was accepted in their community, they have registered a deed of divorce by way of mutual consent.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that it was a customary practice, prevailing in the family of the writ petitioner and his elders were aware of the customary divorce executed. Subsequently, the writ petitioner entered into the contract for second marriage with one M. Suryakala, D/o. Maasaanam. The second marriage of the writ petitioner was solemnized on 10.05.1988 at Madurai in the presence of his relatives. Out of the wedlock with the second wife, a girl child born named as Glory Nancy Jenifer and thereafter, one son, namely, Solomon Pramodh.

6. The name of the first wife of the writ petitioner, namely, A.Gracia Gnanamani was nominated in the service records of the writ petitioner. Soon after the marriage with the first wife, the competent authorities entered the name of the first wife A.Gracia Gnanamani as a nominee.

7. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he executed a deed of divorce by way of mutual consent and the said deed of divorce is to be accepted by the respondent for the purpose of changing the nominee in the service records as well as in the pension records.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the contentions by stating that as per Divorce Act, 1869, more specifically, under Section 10(A), dissolution of marriage by mutual consent is to be obtained from the competent District Court and therefore, the deed of divorce submitted by the writ petitioner cannot be accepted by the competent authorities for the purpose of changing the name of nominee in the service records as well as in the pension records.

9. It is further contended that the consent divorce deed submitted by the writ petitioner is invalid in the eye of law and such deed cannot be considered as a valid document for the purpose of effecting change of nomination in the service records as well as in the pension records. Only, if a decree of divorce granted by the competent Court of law is submitted, then alone, the competent authority can enter or alter the name of the nominee in the service records as well as in the pension records. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has not produced any such decree of divorce granted by the Court of law and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority and there is no infirmity as such.

10. The fact remains that the writ petitioner married one A.Gracia Gnanamani as first wife and entered her name as nominee in the service records. The deed of divorce submitted by the writ petitioner is undoubtedly not valid and null and void in the eye of law. Such a decree of divorce is impermissible and therefore, the first wife remains as a legally wedded wife of the writ petitioner as of no