In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court, to seek directions for quashing an order dated 24-08-2023, passed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Pension, Chennai, and to grant family pension to the petitioner with arrears from her husband’s date of death, a Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner within eight weeks.
The petitioner was the second wife of the deceased employee, who died on 07-01-2022. They got married during the subsistence of the employee’s first marriage, and his first wife, who had earlier deserted him, died on 08-11-2018. The petitioner not only took care of her own kids but also of the children born to the employee in his first marriage.
It was submitted that even though the petitioner’s name was present in the nominee column, when she applied for the sanction of the family pension, the respondents sought the submission of a succession certificate. Aggrieved, she filed the present petition.
The respondents submitted that the second marriage took place when the first one was still valid, and hence, the second marriage could not be entertained under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court said that it was true that a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void, but found it evident that the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner to receive his death-cum-gratuity benefits, as well as in the nominee form regarding the family pension benefits scheme. The Court stated that, even during his lifetime, the deceased employee had been living with the petitioner, which further substantiated the employee’s nomination.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner within eight weeks.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. R. Karunanidhi
For Respondents – Mr. F. Deepak
