Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Smt. Geeta Bai - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP. No.12437 of 2012
Decided On : 09-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Shri Neeraj Dubey, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel
Entitlement to family pension is contingent upon the lawfulness of the marriage, and in cases where second marriage is permissible as per customs.
Headnote:
Family Pension - Entitlement of Second Wife - Regulations 5, 9, 97, 98, 216, 219 - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Regulations and held that the family pension can be granted to widows whose marriage is lawful, and in cases where second marriage is permissible as per customs. However, in the present case, the petitioner's marriage was deemed void under the Hindu Marriage Act, and thus, she was not entitled to family pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the second wife of a deceased employee, sought family pension. Her claim was rejected based on the contention that her marriage was void as the first wife was alive when the second marriage took place.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore, she was not entitled to family pension.
Issues: Entitlement of the second wife to family pension under the Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that family pension can be granted to widows whose marriage is lawful, and in cases where second marriage is permissible as per customs. However, in the present case, the petitioner's marriage was deemed void under the Hindu Marriage Act, and thus, she was not entitled to family pension.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to family pension.
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Smt. Geeta Bai, the second wife of Late Omkar Prasad Singh prayed for a direction to grant her family pension and set aside the order dated 16-03-2012 (Annexure P/10) whereby her claim to grant family pension was rejected by the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with deceased-employee under the Special Marriage Act on 23- 02-1983. Admittedly, first wife of deceased-employee was alive when aforesaid marriage was solemnized. The first wife died on 05-09-1992. Shri Omkar Prasad Singh also expired on 14-07-2011. The petitioner submitted her claim for grant of family pension by contending that being the second wife, she has a right to claim family pension.
3. Shri Neeraj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that for the purpose of examining entitlement of the petitioner Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (hereinafter called as Regulations) would be relevant and CCS (Pension) Rules are not applicable. By placing WP. No. 12437 of 2012 reliance on various provisions of the regulations, it is contended by Shri Dubey that the petitioner being the second wife is entitled to get family pension. In support of his contention, he relied on a Single Bench Judgment of Madras High Court in the case of S. Kamatchi v. Accountant General.
4. Prayer is opposed by Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the other side by placing reliance on certain provisions of regulations. He submits that the second marriage of the petitioner is solemnized when first wife was alive. Hence, the said marriage is a void marriage and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated to be a member of the "family". Since she does not fall within the ambit of definition of "Family", she is not entitled to get family pension. In support of his contention, he relied on (2000) 2 SCC 431 (Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.) and the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of P. Velammal v. The Additional Assistant. He also relied on a judgment passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in the case of Pramila Devi v. Union of India & Ors.
5. No other point is pressed by the parties.
6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Before dealing with rival contentions of the parties, it is condign to refer certain provisions of regulations. Regulation 5 (c)(explanation) makes it clear that the word pension is wide enough to include Retiring/Service, disability, invalid or family pension, as the case may be. Section (iv) deals with "Family Pensionary Award". Regulation 9 (a) reads as under:-
"9(a) Where an individual is survived by more eligible widow than one the family pension is paid to them in equal shares. The principle of minimum pension of Rs.375 is applicable to the original family pension and not to the divided share of each widow. On the death of a widow, her share of pension becomes payable to her eligible child. If at the time of death, a widow leaves no eligible child, the payment of her share of pension is payable to other widows in equal share or if-there is only on such widow in full to her.
(b) Where an individual is survived by a widow but has left behind an eligible child from another wife who is not alive or divorced the eligible child is paid the share of pension which her mother would have received if she had been alive/not been divorced at the time of death of Govt servant/pensioner." Regulation 97 reads as under:-
"97. Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child: (Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such other widow, in full, to he
