Back
2018 Supreme(Megh) 82
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
Smt. Joycee Chyne - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. - Respondents
WP (C) No. 234 of 2018
Decided On : 03-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.F. Qureshi.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Deb Nath.
The main legal point established is that a marriage solemnized in contravention to the conditions specified in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is void, and the spouse in such a marriage is not entitled to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Headnote:
Family Pension - Marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Sections 4, 24 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 5(1), 11 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 54(7) - Government of India Decision No. 15
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the second wife of the deceased, sought family pension after his death. The deceased had a first marriage and two children, and later married the petitioner under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The petitioner's claim was rejected based on the void nature of her marriage and the relevant pension rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's marriage was void as it contravened the conditions of both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The court also upheld the decision of the respondent that the petitioner was not entitled to family pension as a legally wedded wife.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the petitioner's marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and her entitlement to family pension as the deceased's second wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, along with Rule 54(7) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and Government of India Decision No. 15 to determine the void nature of the petitioner's marriage and her ineligibility for family pension.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner had no right to claim family pension as the second wife of the deceased.
JUDGMENT :
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
1. In view of clear admitted factual position, as pleaded in the petition i.e. the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased who had contracted marriage with her during subsistence of his first marriage with respondent No. 4, notice to the respondent No. 4 was not issued. The objection is raised by the learned CGC appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 to the effect that the petition is not worth to be entertained.
2. Sanction for family pension in favour of the petitioner has been declined, on the ground that she was the second wife of the deceased retired employee, as conveyed to her by the respondent No. 2 vide F. No. CCA/NE/PEN/P.TIRKEY/2007-2008 dated 08.06.2018. Aggrieved whereof, instant petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to process the family pension case in favour of the petitioner as she is entitled to receive monthly pension after the death of her husband (L) Polycrap Tirkey with whom she has been living from the year 1982. The marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 03.12.2007, therefore, the communication above referred which was sent to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 may be quashed.
3. The maintainability of the petition was questioned by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 on the ground that in view of the settled position of law, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension as she had contracted marriage with the deceased employee during subsistence of his first marriage which is void, therefore, in terms of Government of India Decision (15) clarifying, that under Rule 54 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 the second wife is not entitled to family pension.
4. It is an admitted position that the deceased Polycrap Tirkey was an employee of the erstwhile Department of Telecom Services which was taken over by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited incorporated on 15.09.2000 providing telecom services and network management from the erstwhile Central Government Department of Telecom Services (DTS) and Telecom Operation (DTO).
5. On reaching superannuation, Shri Polycrap Tirkey retired in the year 2007 and died on 21.02.2010. After his retirement, pension was sanctioned which he was receiving till death.
6. It is also admitted by the petitioner in her petition that her husband (Shri Polycrap Tirkey) was first married to Smti. Albina Tirkey (respondent No. 4) in the year 1964, out of the said wedlock two children were born, who have attained the age of majority. According to the petitioner, as pleaded in the petition the respondent No. 4 first wife had deserted her husband (now deceased) in the year 1970 and started living separately. Thereafter, Shri Polycrap Tirkey (now deceased) was living with the petitioner right from the year 1982 and from their wedlock also two children were born. The marriage was not registered, however, it was later on registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short the Act of 1954) as is clear from the Certificate of Marriage issued from the office of the Marriage Officer, East Khasi Hills, Shillong, Meghalaya dated 03.12.2007 certifying the marriage of Shri Polycrap Tirkey and the petitioner w.e.f. 26.01.1982.
7. It is also pleaded in the petition that the first marriage of Shri Polycrap Tirkey was not dissolved. Apprehending future complicacy in getting monthly pension after his death, her marriage with the deceased was got registered. In addition thereto, (L) Polycrap Tirkey filed an application under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act of 1955) for dissolution of first marriage with respondent No. 4, a decree of divorce was granted by the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong on 24.11.2008, while disposing of Mat (D/S) Suit No. 1(A) of 2008. After dissolution of marriage, official respondents were informed accordingly.
8. (L) Polycrap Tirkey had also executed a "Will" dated 18.03.2009 which was duly registered by the S
