Madras High Court
M.Arumaivalli vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 2 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
W.P.No.4447 of 2020
M.Arumaivalli ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 09.
2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Nagapattinam.
4. The Commissioner,
Kuttalam Panchayat Union,
Kuttalam,
Nagapattinam District.
5. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, (A&E),
Teynampet,
Chennai. ...Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the fifth respondent in proceeding
GPF.No.19/II/47/39127 dated 06.08.2019 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to sanction Family Pension and
other consequential Pensionary benefit to the petitioner with effect from the
date of death of her husband S.Mahalingam on 17.10.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prem Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal,
Government Advocate,
R1 to R4.
Mr.Vijay Shankar,
Standing Counsel,
For R5.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fifth
respondent in proceedings GPF.No.19/II/47/39127 dated 06.08.2019 and
consequently, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to sanction Family Pension and
other consequential pensionary benefit to the petitioner with effect from the
date of death of her husband S.Mahalingam on 17.10.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was married to one Mahalaingam
who was working as Helper in the Kuttalam Panchayat Union. The petitioner is
the second wife of Mahalingam who was earlier married to one Mariammal. He
was having a son and daughter through Mariammal. Since the said Mariammal
was mentally unwell and in order to take care of the children born out of his
wedlock with Mariammal, the petitioner's husband Mahalingam married the
petitioner as his second wife on 22.04.1986. The said Mariammal died on
27.03.1997. Thus, after the death of the first wife, the petitioner's marriage with
the said Mahalingam became a valid marriage. The petitioner's husband
Mahalingam died on 17.10.2015. Hence, the petitioner requested for family
pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 which was rejected by the
respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in
the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and sought a direction to the
respondents 1 to 5 to sanction Family Pension and other consequential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of her
husband S.Mahalingam on 17.10.2015.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to
4 submitted that he has filed a counter affidavit stating that the deceased
employee had nominated his son Ramachandran in respect of GPF amount.
That apart, the Tahsildar has issued a Legal Heirship Certificate mentioning the
daughter Meena and Son Ramachandran born through his first wife Mariammal
as the legal heirs of the said deceased employee. He further submitted that
there is no authenticated evidence let in by the petitioner to show that she is the
legally wedded wife of the deceased Mahalingam. The petitioner has also not
produced any valid records such as marriage registration Certificate, Family
Card, EPIC Card or any other documents to prove that she was living with the
said Mahalingam. Hence, the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition.
5. This Court carefully heard the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The issue involved in this writ petition had already engaged the
attention of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a Judgment dated
05.06.2018 in W.A.No.977 of 2017, wherein, the issue of providing family
pension to the second wife of the deceased employee therein was dealt with
extensively. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder:-
"42. We have discussed the basis on which the
various judgments, of course conflicting views, have
been rendered. Insofar as the view that the second wife
of the Government Servant, who died prior to
02.06.1992 as held in Tamilselvi case, referred to
supra, and the view that a widow of an invalid second
marriage that had taken place prior to 14.10.1991, as
held in Pushpavalli case, have given our reasons, as to
why, we are unable to subscribe to the said conclusions
of the learned Single Judge. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that in order to enable a second wife to claim
family pension the marriage should have been valid
under the Personal Law applicable to the parties, to
hold otherwise would be in violation of the law of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
land, viz. the Personal Law of the parties as well as the
Criminal Law, which prohibits bigamous marriage.
43. We are, therefore, constrained to conclude
that the judgments which conclude that a second wife
would be entitled to family pension, irrespective of her
marriage being void, under the provisions of their
relevant Personal Law applicable to the parties do not
reflect the correct position of law and therefore will
stand overruled. The applicability of Sub Rule 7(a)(i) is
confined only to cases where the second marriage is
valid under the personal Law applicable to the parties,
only in such cases, widows of such marriages would be
entitled to family pension."
7. In view of the above findings rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant relief as prayed for by the
petitioner.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to
make a representation to the respondents once again in this regard. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Court is not inclined to give such liberty and this writ petition is dismissed
accordingly.
02.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
kmm
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 09.
2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Nagapattinam.
4. The Commissioner,
Kuttalam Panchayat Union,
Kuttalam,
Nagapattinam District.
5. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, (A&E),
Teynampet,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
kmm
W.P.No.4447 of 2020
02.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
