Madras High Court Draws Line: No Family Pension for Second Wife in Bigamous Union

In a firm stance on government service ethics, a division bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that a retired Block Development Officer's second wife cannot be nominated for family pension. The bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan , set aside a single judge's 2021 order in Writ Appeal No. 1072 of 2022, prioritizing Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and Conduct Rules over presumptions of validity.

From Retirement Wish to Legal Battle

M. Radhakrishnan, a retired Block Development Officer who stepped down on July 31, 2007 , sought to nominate both his wives for family pension benefits after retirement. He married his second wife, R. Revathy, on May 27, 1992 —while his first wife, R. Vasantha, was still alive. In April 2009 , he applied to the Block Development Officer, Thoraiyur, to include both names in his Pension Payment Order. The request reached the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu , who rejected it on July 29, 2009 , deeming the second marriage null and void due to bigamy.

Vasantha passed away on August 10, 2020 , prompting Radhakrishnan to renew his plea for Revathy's inclusion. A single judge allowed Writ Petition No. 21883 of 2021 on November 2, 2021 , leaning on a presumption of marriage validity from a prior ruling. The Accountant General appealed, leading to today's decision dated January 27, 2026 .

As reported in local coverage, this case underscores long-standing tensions between personal choices and public service obligations, with the court affirming that bigamy remains a disqualifier even post the first spouse's death.

Pensioner’s Plea vs. Rulebook Rigour

Radhakrishnan argued that with the first wife's death, no bar existed to nominating Revathy, emphasizing their cohabitation and the single judge's reliance on C. Sarojini Devi vs. Director of Local Fund Audits (2020), which invoked a " presumption of marriage ."

The Accountant General countered sharply: the 1992 marriage violated the Hindu Marriage Act, rendering it void ab initio . They highlighted Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 , prohibiting bigamy, and Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 , which limits family pension to legally valid spouses. Even the initial joint nomination bid during both wives' lifetimes was rejected, they noted, as bigamy constitutes grave misconduct .

Decoding the Rules: Void Marriages Need Not Apply

The bench dissected the pension framework meticulously. Under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules Rule 3(1)(e) and Rule 49(6) , family pension eligibility hinges on widowhood from a valid union. Crucially, the Explanation to Rule 7 states: "the second wife shall be eligible for the benefits of family pension only if the second marriage—(i) Solemnised as per the customary law prevailed among the community before the date of commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ... or (ii) Solemnised under the Mohammadan Law in which bigamy is permissible."

Radhakrishnan's case fit neither exception. The court invoked R. Rajathi vs. Superintendent Engineer (2018), which parsed Rule 49 extensively, and the Supreme Court's Raj Kumari vs. Krishna ((2015) 14 SCC 511), holding: "Normally, pension is given to the legally wedded wife... By no stretch of imagination one can say that the plaintiff... was the legally wedded wife... especially when he had a wife, who was alive when he married to another woman."

Bigamy, the bench stressed, is not just an offense but a "misconduct warranting departmental proceedings," tainting pension claims indefinitely.

Key Observations

"The second marriage is null and void . Even during the life time of both the wives, the 1st respondent submitted an application for inclusion of the names of both the wives in the Pension Payment Order which was rejected by the Accountant General of TamilNadu."

"Contracting second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse is a misconduct warranting departmental proceedings, which is considered as grave misconduct , under the Conduct Rules."

"Death of the first wife would not provide a ground to claim family pension by the second wife, since the second marriage is void."

"The eligibility for pension and family pension is of paramount importance, since the pension is a welfare scheme and being granted in accordance with the provisions of TamilNadu Pension Rules, 1978."

Pension Purity Upheld: Implications for Public Servants

The writ order was set aside: "the impugned writ order dated 02.11.2021 in W.P.No.21883 of 2021 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs."

This ruling reinforces that pensions are not personal entitlements but governed strictly by rules safeguarding public trust. Future claimants from irregular unions face an uphill battle, with no " presumption of marriage " trumping explicit statutory bars. For Tamil Nadu's government retirees, it's a clear reminder: service conduct echoes into retirement benefits.