Back
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
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.
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.
A second wife is not entitled to family pension benefits if the first wife is alive, but the son of the second wife is eligible for family pension until the age of 25.
Family pension is payable only to the legally wedded spouse of an employee, and second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse makes the petitioner ineligible for family pension under the pe....
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.
Pension is a protected right under Article 300-A of the Constitution; denial of family pension to a legally wedded second wife without due process violates principles of natural justice.
Muslim Personal Law permits second marriages and subsequent rights to family pension; prior government circulars cannot override this principle.
Eligibility for family pension includes second wives if marriages are registered and valid under law.
Long cohabitation and the birth of children can establish a de facto marriage, entitling a partner to family pension benefits, even if the marriage was initially invalid due to the subsistence of a p....
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
