The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision for payment of pension to more than one widow applies only to lawful marriages, and the concept of a widow does not arise in the case of an unlawful marriage.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 2796 of 2010 on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants herein. They had filed the suit seeking a declaration that the order passed in Letter No. 10127/P8/SC4/MTC/2007 dated 04.07.2007 is null and void and to direct the defendants, the Secretary to Government (Transport TBC) Department and the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai), Ltd., and the Accountant General (Accounts-Entitlement), Chennai, to pay family pension to the first plaintiff from the account PPO No. A550723 of C.Muniyandi, whom the first plaintiff claimed was her husband.

2. The said C.Muniyandi had joined State Transport Department and was later transferred to State Transport Corporation. He retired on 31.07.1990. He was receiving his family pension vide PPO No. A550723. He died on 02.09.2004. The first plaintiff applied for family pension in Form -14 through the second defendant. It was returned, stating that she was not entitled for family pension as she was his second wife.

3. It was stated in the plaint that the first wife had died on 19.06.1989.

4. The first plaintiff claimed that she had married C.Muniyandi on 14.06.1969. At that time, the first wife was alive and her marriage with C.Munniyandi was subsisting.

5. It is therefore seen that the first plaintiff had married C.Muniyandi even though the marriage with his first wife was subsisting.

6. During evidence, this fact had been admitted by the first plaintiff. She also admitted that C.Muniyandi married her even without a lawful divorce having been obtained from the first wife.

7. The trial Court had dismissed the suit by Judgment dated 18.08.2011 holding that the marriage of the first plaintiff with C.Muniyandi was null and void and that therefore she was not entitled for family pension as she had no legal status to receive family pension from the Government.

8. The appellants herein then filed A.S.No. 443 of 2012 before the II Additional District Court, City Civil Court, Chennai. Once again the same averments were made. It was again noted that the first wife had died only on 19.06.1989 and at the time of the marriage of the first appellant herein on 14.09.1969, the marriage with the first wife was subsisting. The admissions of the plaintiff in that regard were again extracted and again holding that the marriage was null and void, the Appeal Suit was also dismissed.

9. The plaintiffs have then filed the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal has been meandering around for the past 5 years without being admitted. Notice had also been directed to the respondents and counsel had also entered appearance.

10. Mr. V.S.Jagadeesan, learned counsel made a fervent plea for the admission of the Second Appeal. The learned counsel stated that the Tamilnadu Pension Rules 1978 provides for payment of pension to more than one widows and found fault with the Judgment of both the Courts below and stated that they had not properly interpreted the relevant provision. The provision claimed to be relevant by the learned counsel is Rule 49(7)(a)(i), which is held as follows:-

“(7)(a)(i) Where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares.”

11. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel that if family pension is payable to more than two widows then it should be paid in equal shares to both the widows.

12. Unfortunately, the argument of the learned counsel is based on a wrong presumption. The words in the provision are “payable to more than one widow”. If it is payable to a widow then the marriage should be lawful. If the marriage is unlawful and not recognised in law, the concept of a widow would never arise on the death of a Government Servant. The word “payable” has to be distinguished from the word “sanctioned”. The rule does not say that the pension can be sanctioned to a lady, who claims to have married the Government Servant as his