Summary of this article
Madras High Court ruled that the second wife isn't entitled to family pension if the bigamy is void.
The government servant contracted a second marriage in 1992 while his first wife was alive and married to him.
First wife's death in 2020 doesn't validate the void union with second wife.
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court ruled that a second wife is not entitled to a family pension if the second marriage occurred during the lifetime of the first wife. A division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan ruled that bigamy is not only a criminal offence but also a grave misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The court held that the death of a first wife does not retroactively validate a void second marriage for the purpose of family pension or financial benefits.
Case Background
The case involved M Radhakrishnan, a retired Block Development Officer, who left his job in July 2007. He contracted a second marriage with Mrs R. Revathy in May 1992, while his first wife, Mrs R. Vasantha, was still alive. After leaving the service, he, in 2009, made a request to his employer (the government) to include both his wives as nominees in his pension payment order (PPO). However, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu rejected his request. In August 2020, his first wife died. The petitioner (Radhakrishnan) approached the court again to include his second wife’s name as his nominee, arguing that there is no legal impediment now, as his first wife is no longer alive.
In 2021, a single-judge bench allowed the petition on the presumption of a valid marriage. But that led the Accountant General to file an intra-court appeal.
The Accountant General, in its appeal, argued that the second marriage was contracted in total violation of Rule 19 of the Conduct Rules and that the rules strictly prohibit bigamy for government servants. They argued that the second marriage is null and void from its inception, and the second wife cannot be considered a legally wedded wife for family pension under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension, 1978.
In response, Radhakrishnan (respondent) argued that “presumption of marriage” should apply, considering their long-term cohabitation and the fact that his first wife had passed away, his second wife should be given recognition as his wife.
Court Observation
The court observed that the second marriage was solemnized during the lifetime of the respondent’s first wife. It highlighted that Rule 19 of the Conduct Rules permits no government employee to enter a second marriage without the government’s permission, which requires proof that such a union is permissible under personal law.
The Court also noted that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules allow family pension for a second wife only if the marriage was solemnised before the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or under personal laws where bigamy is permissible. But, in this case, none was applicable.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Raj Kumari vs Krishna case, and reiterated that the pensioner benefits are reserved only for “legally wedded” wives.
Court Judgment
The High Court ruled that the impugned writ order was not in compliance with the applicable pension rules. The division bench set aside the impugned order dated November 2, 2021, and allowed the Accountant General’s writ appeal.
The Court ruled that because the second marriage was solemnised when the first wife was alive, it remains void, and the death of the first wife does not give any ground for the second wife to claim family pension. It rejected the request to include the second wife’s name as a nominee in the official records and closed the appeal.
