1. Dispute over family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity between a first wife and children of a second wife in a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 3 , 5 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 202
2000(1) Supreme 385
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
D.P. Wadhwa & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Rameshwari Devi -Appellant
versus
State of Bihar & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 605 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17636 of 1998)
Decided on 27-1-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Anurag Dubey, U.D. Tiwari, Rajesh Pathak, A.K. Gupta, S.R. Setia, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.N. Rawal, R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor Generals, Ms. Pratibha Jain, S.B. Upadhyay, Ms. Rekha Pandey, D.S. Mehra, B.B. Singh, K.R. Singh, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Children born to deceased Government Servant out of second void marriage would be entitled to share family pension and death-cum-retirement-gratuity alongwith wife and children of first marriage but family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attain majority.
Children born to deceased Government Servant out of second void marriage would be entitled to share family pension and death-cum-retirement-gratuity alongwith wife and children of first marriage but family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attain majority.
Subject
Family Law - Succession and Inheritance
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 16-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 5 and 11-Children of void marriage-Right to family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of deceased father-Government Servant contracting second marriage while first wife was alive-No nomination made for family pension and other benefits-Held : children of second void marriage legitimate and entitled to share family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity along with wife and children of first marriage-But they would be entitled to family pension only till they attain majority and second wife would not be entitled to anything.
Held : It cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section 16 of this Act, children of void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolve firstly on heirs in clause (1) which include widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares (see Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956). Yogmaya Devi cannot be described a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Narain Lal being void. Sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares along with that of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is, however, legal position when Hindu male dies intestate. Here, however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum-retirement Gratuity payments which is governed by the relevant rules. It is not disputed before us that if the legal position as aforesaid is correct, there is no error with the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the judgment which is upheld by the Division Bench in to the effect that children born to Narain Lal from the wedlock with Yogmaya Devi were entitled to share the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and further that family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attained majority. He also held that the second wife Yogmaya Devi was not entitled to anything. (Para 14)
(ii) Service Law-Family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity-Settlement disbursement of-Rival claim by two wives and their children-Second marriage, void marriage-There was no nomination by deceased Government Servant-Government could hold enquiry about factum of second marriage and disburse benefit to first wife and children and the children of second marriage.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. First wife disputes the factum of second marriage and legitimacy of children; second wife claims presumption of marriage based on long cohabitation. (Para 3 , 7 , 10 , 15 )
3. State inquiries for pensionary benefits are valid without civil court decrees; long cohabitation creates a rebuttable presumption of marriage; children of void marriages are legitimate under Section 16, HMA. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Children born of a void marriage are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and entitled to share in the deceased's estate and pensionary benefits. (Para 9 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed, affirming the High Court's direction to pay family pension and gratuity to the minor children of the second wife. (Para 16 )
6. Does long cohabitation between a man and woman create a presumption of a valid marriage?
Yes, a strong presumption arises in favor of wedlock where partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on the party seeking to deprive the relationship of legal origin. (Para 7 , 13 )
7. Are children born from a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act considered legitimate?
Yes, under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, children born of a void marriage are deemed legitimate and are entitled to claim a share in the property and pensionary benefits of their father. (Para 9 , 14 )
8. Must the State Government wait for a civil court's decree to determine the rightful claimant for pensionary benefits?
No, the State Government can hold its own inquiry to determine the rightful claimant for pensionary benefits to avoid long delays. Such inquiries must be bona fide, reasonable, and rational. (Para 13 , 15 )
9. Can departmental authorities determine the existence of a second marriage for the purpose of misconduct proceedings?
Yes, departmental proceedings for misconduct regarding a second marriage can proceed to finality at a departmental end, even if the matter would normally be dealt with in a matrimonial or civil court. (Para 11 , 12 )
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.
2. Appellant is aggrieved by judgment dated April 23, 1998 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge dated April 26, 1996.
3. Dispute concerns to payment of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity to two wives of Narain Lal, who died in 1987 while posted as Managing Director, Rural Development Authority of the State of Bihar. Appellant is the first wife. Narain Lal is stated to have married second time with Yogmaya Devi on April 10, 1963 while the appellant was still alive. From the first marriage he had one son and from the second marriage four sons born in 1964, 1971, 1972 and 1976. Learned single Judge in his judgment held that children born to Narain Lal from the wedlock with Yogmaya Devi were entitled to share the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and further that family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attained majority. He also held that the second wife Yogmaya Devi was not entitled to anything. Appeal by the first wife Rameshwari Devi against the judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench. According to her there was no marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi and the children were, therefore, not legitimate. Aggrieved Rameshwari Devi has come to this Court.
4. On filing of the special leave petition notices were issued to the respondents. In response thereto counter affidavits have been filed by-(1) Yogmaya Devi, (2) State of Bihar and (3) Accountant General (A & E) II Patna.
5. Stand of the State Government is that Rameshwari Devi was the legally married wife of Narain Lal. He married again to Yogmaya Devi in April, 1963 and that the marriage with Yogmaya Devi was against the provisions of law as contained in Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was, therefore, a void marriage. Second wife had thus no status and could not claim any share from the estate of Narain Lal as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Accordingly State Government sanctioned family pension and gratuity to Rameshwari Devi by its order dated August 22, 1995. By this order the State Government cancelled its previous two orders dated September 23, 1993 and October 6, 1993. Group insurance and final withdrawal of GPF had already been sanctioned to Rameshwari Devi. However, in compliance with the order of the High Court dated April 26, 1996 in writ petition filed by Yogmaya Devi family pension gratuity, GPF, pay for unutilised leave and group insurance were sanctioned to Rameshwari and her son and minor son of Yogmaya Devi.
6. Accountant General in his affidavit has only to refer to the action of the State Government in cancelling its earlier order dated September 23, 1993 and fresh order dated August 22, 1995 authorising all the payments to Rameshwari Devi being the sole recipient to family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. Accountant General says that on the orders of the State Government it authorised full family pension and full gratuity to Rameshwari Devi. Reference was then made to writ petition filed by Yogmaya Devi in the High Court and when the State Government on the basis of the order of the High Court issued fresh order dated October 17, 1996 Accountant General accordingly authorised 50% of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity to the minor children of Yogmaya Devi. A direction was issued to the Treasury Officer to recover excess amount of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity paid to Rameshwari Devi and further to reduce her family pension and death-cum retirement gratuity by 50%. Accountant General is non-committal if the children of Yogmaya Devi are legitimate or illegitimate children of Narain Lal and rightly so. He has merely to act as per the directions issued by the State Government.
7. Rameshwari Devi has disputed the very factum of marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi. Her case is t
