Madras High Court
T.Stella vs Metropolitan Transport Corporation ... on 27 February, 2013
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.02.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.4828 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 T.Stella .. Petitioner -vs- 1. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2. Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records in proceedings Letter No.24452/PBSC4/MTC/2006 dated 06.08.2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction family pension to the petitioner following the death of her husband late Thulasingam and pay the arrears of family pension and the amounts due under the Family Security Fund Scheme to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Sadasharam For R1 : Mr.G.Munirathinam For R2 : Mr.R.Ravichandran Addl. Govt. Pleader ***** O R D E R
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order issued vide Letter No.24452/PBSC4/MTC/2006 dated 06.08.2007, declining the request of petition for grant of family pension, on the ground, that being the second wife, has no legal status to claim family pension.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner, that the husband of petitioner late Thulasingam was employed as Light Vehicle Driver with Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited from where he sought voluntary retirement. That prior to retirement, late Thulasingam had contracted second marriage with the petitioner on 25.01.1975, while his first wife Tmt.A.Meena was alive. That the second marriage was contracted with the consent of the first wife, who subsequently died on 28.06.1980.
3. It is further submitted, that children of the first wife were living with the deceased Thulasingam and petitioner jointly and it was the petitioner, who brought up those children. The husband of petitioner late Thulasingam died intestate on 02.06.1988 and prior to his death, he was availing pension vide PPO No.A550639.
4. The petitioner in her capacity as the second wife, applied for arrears of pension and also the amount due under Family Security Scheme, which were paid to her on 15.04.1999.
5. The petitioner also applied for payment of family pension, claiming to be the second wife of late Thulasingam. The petitioner along with her claim submitted Form 14, including legal heirship certificate for sanction of family pension. That on the instruction of 2nd respondent, the petitioner also submitted necessary documents, viz., marriage certificate, no objection certificate signed by the legal heirs of late Thulasingam and also the copy of death certificate of the deceased Meena. That finally impugned order has been passed, declining the request of petitioner for grant of family pension.
6. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, on the ground, that the order rejecting the grant of family pension is illegal and against law, therefore, is liable to be quashed, being arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. It is case of petitioner, that she was treated to be the second wife of late Thulasingam for the purpose of settlement of arrears. The respondents, therefore, having accepted that she is the second wife, could not now deny family pension to the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, besides raising contentions referred to above, also contended, that once it was not disputed, that after death of first wife, the petitioner was living with her husband and children and has been declared as legal heir of late Thulasingam. Being second wife, she could not be denied the benefit of family pension.
9. It was also vehemently contended, that once other legal heirs of the deceased gave no objection, there was no justification with the respondents to deny family pension to the petitioner, specially when it is proved on record, that the first wife had given her consent to late Thulasingam to marry the petitioner.
10. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, by vehemently contending, that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of family pension, because she was admittedly the second wife, therefore, her marriage was void in law. She is therefore not entitled to family pension. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended, that as per Rules applicable, the second wife is not entitled to family pension and merely because retirement benefits were settled in favour of petitioner in view of no objection by other legal heirs, this cannot give right to get family pension.
11. It cannot be disputed, that second wife is not entitled to family pension. On consideration, this Court finds that the question to be decided in this case is;
whether in view of admission by petitioner, that she was admittedly the second wife, could family pension be paid to her.
12. The answer to this question is in negative, as the second wife has no legal status. According to Hindu Law, the marriage during living spouse is void, and gives no status to the second wife, though children born from such marriage get benefits at par with the legitimate children.
13. In this case, it is not disputed, that there is no child born from the wedlock between late Thulasingam and petitioner.
14. One of the questions, which arises in this case, is regarding the status of petitioner, after the death of first wife, as she continued to live with the deceased as wife after the death of the first wife.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that bar under the Hindu Marriage Act ceased to be operative after the death of first wife, therefore, her status became that of legally wedded wife, as petitioner continued to live as wife with late husband after the death of first wife, therefore, pension cannot be denied to her.
16. Though on the face of it, this argument looks attractive, but when seen in depth, it has no legs to stand. The reading of Hindu Marriage Act shows, that the second marriage, while first spouse is living, is not voidable, but is void, therefore, mere death of first wife cannot result in legalizing the second marriage or give the second wife the status of wife.
17. Furthermore, it may be noticed, that family pension is available to the widow of a person during her lifetime, therefore widow will always be the first wife, as there cannot be two widows for a person, as law does not recognize two wives after coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act.
18. It may also be noticed here, that it is admitted case of petitioner, that she was only the second wife and was claiming rights as second wife. No error, therefore, can be found with the impugned order, declining family pension to the petitioner.
19. As already noticed above, merely because pensionary benefits were settled in favour of petitioner, which in fact were to be paid to the children, who gave no objection for release of retirement benefits to her, cannot entitle her to claim family pension also.
20. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.
21. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ar To
1. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2. Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009