Mumbai: The second wife of a government employee is not entitled to family pension after her husband’s death, ruled Bombay High Court.
Justices Shahrukh Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav dismissed a petition filed by 58-year-old Shamal Tate, the second wife of a peon who worked in Solapur district collector’s office, seeking pension.
Shamal had married Mahadeo in May 1974. Mahadeo’s first wife was Pravatibai, who he married in 1962, the Free Press Journal reported.
Shamal, who lived together with Mahadeo till his death in December 1996, was the mother of a son and two daughters of the couple.
Mahadeo had endorsed the name of his second wife Shamal to receive family pension in 1987. After his death, Shamal moved court seeking a succession certificate. Since his first wife Parvatibai was alive at the relevant period, she was made a party to the proceedings. The two women filed terms vis-à-vis their rights.
Parvatibai had given up claims on the house, property and post-retirement benefits, including her right on compassionate job, which was to be given to Shamal.
Shamal had agreed to give up her right to family pension, which Parvatibai received till she died of cancer in 2005.
Shamal thereafter sought pension, but every time her application was rejected, including in 2017.
“The benefit of family pension can only be provided to a widower or widow whose marriage is lawful. In cases where the husband belongs to the Muslim community or to a community where a second marriage is permissible as per their personal laws, the second wife/widows can be granted family pension,” Amicus Curiae advocate Drupad Patil argued.
“However, in the present case, family pension cannot be granted to Shamal whose marriage to her deceased husband is demonstrably and admittedly void under the Hindu Marriage Act,” Patil said.
The judges said: “We may state that in view of the legislative connotations to the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, read with Hindu Marriage Act, the Pension Rules, cannot be interpreted to mean that a wife of a government employee whose marriage to the government employee was unlawful is also entitled to pensionary benefits. It is pertinent to note that Shamal has categorically relinquished her right to claim the family pension of Mahadeo and has consented to the same being granted to the first wife. In view thereof, she is now estopped from filing a claim for family pension given, that she has waived her right to the same.”
