Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1202
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
A.Motcham – Appellant
Versus
The Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlements) – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.22397 of 2017
Decided on : 09-08-2024
Important Points
Only legally wedded wives are entitled to family pension benefits, as established by precedent.
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Writ Petition - Family Pension - The court upheld the rejection of a second wife's claim for family pension based on established legal precedent, affirming that only legally wedded wives are entitled to such benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the second wife of deceased employee A.Ignasimuthu, sought to quash an order rejecting her claim for family pension on the grounds of her marital status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's claim was consistent with established law, specifically referencing a prior decision that denied family pension rights to a second wife.
Issues: Whether a second wife is entitled to family pension benefits under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the legal framework clearly states that only a legally wedded wife is entitled to family pension, thus validating the rejection of the petitioner's claim.
Result: The Writ Petition was dismissed, with no merit found in the petitioner's arguments.
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathisamy
For the Respondent:Mr.P.Gunasekaran Standing Counsel, Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order No.AG(AGE)/Legal Cell/AN 272/16-17/1743/96794 dated 12.01.2017 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking to quash the impugned order No.AG(AGE)/Legal Cell/AN 272/16-17/1743/96794 dated 12.01.2017 issued by the first respondent.
2. The petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee one A.Ignasimuthu. Under the impugned order, the petitioner's claim for family pension in respect of the deceased A.Ignasimuthu has been rejected on the ground that she is a second wife.
3. The law is now well settled as laid down by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.Rajathi Vs. The Superintendent Engineer and another reported in (2018) 1 WLR 725, that the second wife is not entitled for family pension as she is not the legally wedded wife.
4. In view of the well settled law, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent under the impugned order has rightly rejected the petitioner's request, for grant of family pension.
5. In the result, there is no merit in this Writ Petition.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
