Karnataka High Court
Smt Mahalakshmamma @ Mahalakshmi vs The Secretary on 17 November, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:41044-DB
WA No. 256 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2023 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHALAKSHMAMMA
@ MAHALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT BYLAPPANAMUTT,
MUDDENAHALLI POST,
CHIKNAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 28.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS.SHARMILA GOWDA M R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVINDRA M R.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SHARADA AND:
VANI B
Location: 1. THE SECRETARY
HIGH DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND PANCHAYATHRAJ,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
NEAR M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:41044-DB
WA No. 256 of 2023
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYTH RAJ ENGNEERING SUB-DIVISION,
ARSIKERE 573 103
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4. HANUMANTHAIAH
S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT BYLAPPANAMUTT,
MUDDENAHALLI POST,
CHICKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 228.
5. THE CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN-573 302.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE PASSED ON 14/12/2022 IN WP
NO.33427/2016 OF THIS HON BLE COURT AS PER ANNEXURE-
A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND ii)
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 TO GRANT
PENSION TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE DATE OF THE DEATH
OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND SRI. NANJUNDAIAH W.E.F. 14-
01-2015 AND iii) PASS SUCH SUITABLE ORDER/s INCLUDING
THE COST OF THE LITIGATION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:41044-DB
WA No. 256 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against a learned Single Judge's
order dated 14.12.2022 whereby her W.P.No.33427/2016
(S-R) has been negatived. The prayer in the writ petition
was for the quashment of a letter dated 1st & 3rd
December of 2015 whereby her request for the sanctioning
of Family Pension along with arrears was rejected on the
ground that she was a espoused by the employee when
the first marriage was subsisting.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that
even the second wife is entitled to Family Pension and
therefore the impugned order is liable to be voided.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the official respondents nos. 1 to 3 repels this contention
pointing out the undisputed fact that appellant had
contracted the marriage with the employee when his first
marriage was subsisting.
NC: 2023:KHC:41044-DB
WA No. 256 of 2023
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the appellant
was not the legally wedded wife for the purpose of grant of
Family Pension. It hardly needs to be stated that amongst
Hindus monogamy is not only ideal but a legal prescription
and therefore marriage contracted when the first wife is
alive, cannot be taken cognizance of by law, subject to all
just exceptions into which the argued case of the appellant
does not fit.
4. Recognizing such relations arising from second
marriage during the subsistence of first one is detrimental
to public interest inasmuch as that would facilitate directly
or indirectly the employees contracting the second
marriage, which is legally impermissible. Statutorily
bigamy is an offence punishable u/s. 17 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The provisions of Rule 294 of the
Karnataka Civil Services Rules provide for the sanctioning
NC: 2023:KHC:41044-DB
WA No. 256 of 2023
of Family Pension to the family of a Government servant,
after his demise in harness or post-retirement. Clause (i)
of this Rule reads as under:
"(i) A family pension not exceeding the amount
specified in sub-rule (ii) may be granted to the
family of a Government servant who dies
whether while still in service or after retirement,
after completion of not less than 20 years
qualifying service, for a period of ten years".
Rule 302(i) reads:
" 'Family' for the purpose of this rule will include
the following relatives of the Government
Servant: (a) Wife,...."
Thus Family Pension is payable to the "wife", and not to
those whose marriage is 'no marriage' in the eye of law,
the limited status of legitimacy of children begotten
therefrom, by virtue of Sec.16 1955 Act,
notwithstanding. The Apex Court in RAJ KUMARI vs.
KRISHNA, (2015) 14 SCC 511 at para 13 observed as
under:
"13. Normally, pension is given to the legally
wedded wife of a deceased employee. By no
stretch of imagination one can say that the
plaintiff, Smt. Krishna was the legally wedded
wife of late Shri Atam Parkash, especially when
he had a wife, who was alive when he married
NC: 2023:KHC:41044-DB
WA No. 256 of 2023
to another woman in Arya Samaj temple, as
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants. We are, therefore, of the view
that the High Court should not have modified
the findings arrived at and the decree passed by
the trial court in relation to the pensionary
benefits. The pensionary benefits shall be given
by the employer of late Shri Atam Parkash to
the present appellants in accordance with the
rules and regulations governing service
conditions of late Shri Atam Prakash".
5. The Committee constituted under the Convention
on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) reaffirms paragraph 14 of its General
Recommendation No.21 which reads: "polygamous
marriage contravenes a woman's right to equality with
men, and can have such serious emotional and financial
consequences for her and her dependants that such
marriages ought to be discouraged and prohibited"... The
Committee's view is consistent with the African Union's
position in the Protocol to the African Charter on Human
and People's Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
(Maputo Protocol), that 'monogamy is encouraged as the
preferred form of marriage...' . India being a party State
NC: 2023:KHC:41044-DB
WA No. 256 of 2023
ratified CEDAW on 09.07.1993 expressing its commitment
to the General Resolution which needs to be read into our
Domestic Law, in the absence of contra statute, in view of
Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India vide N.D.JAYAL
vs. UOI, (2004) 9 SCC 362.
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
