Chennai: If a second marriage is contracted during the subsistence of first marriage, it is void and the second wife is not entitled to benefits of family pension, the Madras high court has held.
Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana gave the ruling while dismissing a petition from V. Bakiyam, which challenged an order of the Principal Accountant General, rejecting her request for family pension.
The judge said the petitioner was claiming to be the wife of S.M.Velu (since deceased), a forest guard, who died on July 10, 2013. The employee was married to Muniyammal and had two children . Even during the life time of the said Muniyammal, the petitioner claims to have married him in June 1978. It was also stated that the first wife had consented for the marriage.
Therefore, it was clear and admitted that the marriage of the petitioner with Velu was a bigamous one. Though from the said wedlock, there were three children born to the petitioner, that marriage was a void one, as the same was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage. After the death of her husband, the petitioner had sought family pension, which was rejected.
The judge said it was claimed by the petitioner that she was living with Velu as husband and wife. In fact, the deceased had declared the petitioner as his wife in the nomination column, which was now taken advantage of by the petitioner. No doubt, the concept of family pension was to enable them to live a decent life, even after the life time of the pensioner. However, it was intended only for the legally wedded wife, the judge added.
The judge said the explanation to Rule 49 (7) (a) (i) of the TN pension rules, was very clear that the second wife shall be eligible for the benefits of family pension, if the second marriage was solemnised as per customary law that prevailed among community before the date of commencement of Hindu Marriage Act. “It is the intention of the rule makers that contracting another marriage in the presence of previous one, it is termed as misconduct.”
