SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Meenakshi - Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Officer, Fire Services and Rescue Department, Esplanade, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 10564 of 2016
Decided On : 14-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:No appearance. For the Respondents:R1, S.J. Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate, R2, T.S. Selvarani, Advocate.

The validity of a marriage under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and its impact on entitlement to family pension.

Headnote:

Family Pension - Marriage Validity - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules - Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - [FAMILY PENSION] - [MARRIAGE VALIDITY] - [Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] - The court discussed the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased government employee, considering the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was concluded that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased government employee was considered null and void as it was solemnized during the lifetime of the first wife, leading to the rejection of family pension to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the second wife of a deceased government employee, sought family pension. The 2nd respondent rejected the claim based on the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased government employee was considered null and void, leading to the rejection of family pension to the petitioner.

Issues: Validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased government employee, entitlement to family pension.

Ratio Decidendi: The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased government employee was considered null and void as it was solemnized during the lifetime of the first wife, leading to the rejection of family pension to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dt. 21.12.2015 and to release the Family Pension to the petitioner.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 21.12.2015, and release family pension to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that her husband Late Sri R.Ramalingam was working as Fireman Driver in the Fire Services Department and voluntarily retired from service on 31.03.1997. The husband of the writ petitioner died on 27.07.1998. The petitioner claims that she is the only nominee of her husband Late Sri R.Ramalingam and she is the second wife of the deceased employee. The first wife Valliammal died on 17.05.1996 before the retirement of her husband from service. The petitioner further states that she is having one son, namely, Sri R.Gunasekar and he was a minor when the writ petition was filed. The minor son was receiving family pension during the relevant point of time. However, on attaining majority, the family pension was not paid to the writ petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to grant family pension and the respondents have not considered and thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, relying on the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, states that, while verifying the nomination entries in the Service Register for authorising the Life Time arrears of revised pensionary benefits to the nominees, it was noticed that, in the nomination filed in the year 1974, Smt.Valliammal had been declared as nominee and wife of the deceased Government servant. Whereas, in the pension proposal, dated 12.08.1997, received in the office of the 2nd respondent, Smt.Meenakshi/writ petitioner has been identified as wife of the Government servant. As there was an ambiguity, whether the writ petitioner was the legitimate wife of the deceased Ramalingam, the 2nd respondent issued a Stop Payment Order through telegram, dated 01.10.1999, to the Pension Pay Office, Chennai - 6, under intimation to the petitioner and the documentary evidence for the proof of the second marriage, Death Certificate of first wife and the Date of Birth of the children born through first and second wives, were called for by the office of the 2nd respondent for authorising family pension. Subsequently, both the Pension Pay Books were returned from the Pension Pay Office on 14.10.1999. In the Legal Heirship Certificate, dated 28.05.1999, of the deceased Government servant, issued by the Tahsildar, Thondaiyarpet, Chennai, the following members were identified as his Legal Heirs:

i. Smt.Rajeswari (First wife daughter-DOB-8.8.70)

ii. Smt.Nirmaladevi (First wife daughter- DOB-4.4.73)

iii. Sri.R.Ravikumar (First wife son-DOB-7.7.76)

iv. Sri.R.Balaji (First wife son-DOB-10.8.79)

v. Selvi.R.Yogalakshmi (First wife daughter -DOB-31.7.82)

vi. Smt. Meenakshi (Second wife)

vii. Selvan R.Gunasekaran (Second wife son-DOB-21.1.88)

4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submits that, based on the Legal Heirship Certificate, Death Certificate and the family pension proposal forwarded by the Departmental officer, the 2nd respondent authorised family pension to the following members, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules:

i. Sri.R.Balaji (DOB-10.8.79) - 1st wife son (50% family pension paid from 7.7.2001 to 9.8.2004 upto 25 years)

ii. Kum.R.Yogalakshmi (DOB-31.7.82 - daughter of 1st wife (50% family pension from 10.8.2004 to 30.7.2007 upto 25 Years)

iii. Selvan.R.Gunasekaran (DOB-21.1.88) - son of Second wife

(a) authorised 50% family pension from 28.7.98 upto 20.1.2006 as minor son through Meenakshi.

(b) authorised 50% family pension f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top