The Madras High Court recently ordered the Directorate of Pension and other officials to grant family pension to the second wife of a deceased man, even though the marriage was void.<\/p>\n
Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that even though the marriage was void, since it was solemnized during subsistence of the first marriage, the deceased employee had nominated the second wife, and not any other person, to receive the family pension. The court also noted that even during his lifetime, the deceased employee was living with his second wife, which would substantiate the nomination. <\/p>\n
The court was hearing the petition filed by Chellathai challenging the order of the Joint Director, Directorate of Pension, refusing to grant her family pension. Chellathai submitted that she was the second wife of the deceased employee, and even though the marriage took place during the subsistence of the first marriage, the first wife had deserted the deceased. <\/p>\n
Chellathai submitted that after the desertion by the first wife, she was living with the deceased and taking care of the children born to the couple and also the children born from the first marriage. She further submitted that though her name was mentioned as a nominee in the records, her application for sanction of family pension was not considered. <\/p>\n
The authorities submitted that since Chellathai’s marriage with the deceased took place during the subsistence of the first marriage, the second marriage was void and thus she could not seek family pension as sought for. <\/p>\n
The court noted that though the authorities may be right in rejecting the pension due to a void second marriage, it should also be noted that the deceased had specifically mentioned his second wife as nominee for receiving the pension benefits.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is true that a second marriage, during the subsistence of a valid first marriage, is a void marriage and therefore, the respondents would be right in contending that the request of the petitioner to grant family pension to her should not be entertained. But however considering the facts of the present case, it is evident that the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner for receipt of his death cum gratuity benefits in full, which is also not disputed and that the deceased employee had not nominated any other person other than the petitioner to receive his family pension even in the nominee form pertaining to the family pension benefits scheme, where petitioner’s name alone has been included,\u201d the court said. <\/p>\n
The court was thus inclined to grant the relief sought for. The court quashed the order of the authorities and directed them to grant family pension to Chellathai within a period of 8 weeks. <\/p>\n
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Karunanidhi<\/p>\n
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. F. Deepak Special Government Pleader<\/p>\n
Case Title: Chellathai v. The Joint Director and Others<\/p>\n
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 450<\/p>\n
Case No: W.P.(MD).No.2810 of 2024<\/p>\n