[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

State Of Telangana vs Smt G. Vijaya Lakshmi on 2 December, 2025

        IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                           AT HYDERABAD

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

                   WRIT APPEAL No.603 of 2025

                          DATE: 02.12.2025

BETWEEN:

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition
and Excise Department and 3 others.
                                                   ....Appellants

                                AND

G.Vijaya Lakshmi
                                                 ....Respondent

                           JUDGMENT:

The present Writ Appeal is filed by the State and its

officials, who were arrayed as the respondents in

W.P.No.21514 of 2022 (hereafter "appellants" for brevity),

assailing the order of learned Single Judge dated 07.06.2023

in W.P.No.21514 of 2022 (which was confirmed by the order

dated 05.03.2025 in a review application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024

in W.P.No.21514 of 2022). The learned Single Judge in the

order dated 07.06.2023 directed the appellants to release the ::2::

family pension of Late G.Muralidhar Rao (hereafter "employee"

for brevity) to the writ petitioner (hereafter "respondent" for

brevity).

2. Heard Ms.B.Annapurna, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Services-I for the appellants; and Mr.G.Ravi

Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent,

and perused the record.

Chronology of events and factual matrix (in brief) :

It is apposite to extract a brief chronology of dates and

events for the proper appreciation of the controversy involved

in the present case.

     Sl.       Date                Event                 Significance
     No.
     1.      23.02.1974   The       marriage     of    As      per      the
                          G.Muralidhar        Rao      respondent      and
                          (Employee)          with     based     on     the
                          Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi.       judgment    of    VII
                                                       Metropolitan
                                                       Magistrate,
                                                       Cyberabad          in
                                                       C.C.No.132 of 2006.

2. 26.12.1974 Marriage of the employee As per the service with the respondent. records of the employee.

3. 2006 Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi Smt.G.Anantha filed C.C.No.132 of 2006 Lakshmi alleges under Section 498-A and bigamy, for the first 494 IPC against the time.

employee and respondent.

::3::

4. 20.09.2007 Respondent was discharged Expunges from C.C.No.132 of 2006 allegations of under Section 494 IPC. Bigamy against the respondent.

5. 27.10.2009 The learned VII Bigamy could not Metropolitan Magistrate, be established and Cyberabad acquitted the the offence under employee under Sections Section 498-A IPC 498-A and 494 IPC. also was not made out.

6. 30.06.2010 Employee suffers an order of maintenance to -

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi.

7. 31.01.2014 Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi

expired.

8. 13.12.2019 Employee expired. -

9. 25.01.2020 Application of the respondent for family -

pension of the employee.

10. 04.01.2021 Rejection of the application for family pension by the -

appellants.

11. 19.10.2020 Order in W.P.No.18384 of 2020 filed by respondent directing the appellants to consider the representation

of the respondent to grant pension.

12. 11.11.2020 Fresh representation of the

respondent.

13. 04.01.2021 Rejection of the representation of the

respondent for grant of pension.

14. April, 2022 Respondent filed

challenging the rejection of claim of family pension and -

seeking relief of family pension.

::4::

15. 07.06.2023 The learned Single Judge allowed W.P.No.21514 of 2022 directing the

                          appellants to release the
                          family   pension    to the
                          respondent.

16. 05.03.2025 The learned Single Judge dismissed the review application vide I.A.No.1 of

                          2024 in W.P.No.21514 of
                          2022      filed     by    the
                          appellants.

3. The appellants have filed the present appeal aggrieved by

the order dated 07.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.21514 of 2022,

as confirmed by the order dated 05.03.2025 in review

application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024.

4. The core dispute involved in the present proceedings is

the claim for family pension by the respondent, the widow of

G.Muralidhar Rao, a retired Prohibition & Excise Inspector

(employee). The appellants rejected her claim on the ground

that the respondent was the second wife of the employee.

5. The appellants contended that one Smt.G.Anantha

Lakshmi was the legally wedded wife of the employee as

declared by Criminal Court in C.C.No.132 of 2006, which was

tried for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The

appellants argue that the respondent's marriage with the ::5::

employee was void, in view of the subsisting marriage of the

employee with Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi. The appellants claim

that the respondent cannot be considered as the legally

wedded wife of the employee under Telangana Revised Pension

Rules, 1980, as the employee married the respondent without

the permission of the Government and during the subsistence

of the first marriage, which is against the Hindu Marriage Act

and also in violation of the applicable Conduct Rules.

6. The respondent argues that she is the only legally

recognized wife in the employee's official service records

throughout his career and as such, being the nominee of the

employee, she is entitled for pension. The respondent further

contends that she was discharged from the charge of bigamy

under Section 494 IPC in C.C.No.132 of 2006; that mere grant

of maintenance to Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi does not confer to

her status as the legally wedded wife of the employee.

7. Respondent further contends that in any event, she is

the only surviving wife at the time of death of the employee, as

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi already having expired. The learned

Single Judge allowed the respondent's writ petition and

directed the appellants to release the family pension of the ::6::

employee to the respondent. The appellants' review application

was also dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2025, leading to the

filing of the present writ appeal.

The contentions on behalf of appellants

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I

contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary

to law and the rules, particularly, Section 5 of the Hindu

Marriage Act which prohibits Bigamy. The learned counsel

further contends that Rule 25 of the Telangana State Civil

Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short "1964 Rules")

prohibit the government servant from contracting a second

marriage without permission from the Government. Learned

counsel further refers to the executive instructions and

circular memo dated 20.08.1991 and 11.09.1996 under the

Pension Rules, which explicitly state that the family pension is

not admissible to second wife, if the marriage was contracted

without permission of the Government while the first wife was

alive.

9. It is further contended that the judgment dated

27.10.2009 in C.C.No.132 of 2006 on the file of VII ::7::

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad conclusively declared

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi as legally wedded wife of the

employee and also declared her date of marriage with employee

as 23.02.1974. Learned counsel contends that this finding,

which is based on the witness' examination is binding and

establishes that the respondent was married subsequently on

26.12.1974 and was thus the second wife; that the marriage of

the respondent with the employee, while the marriage of

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi with the employee was subsisting

was therefore invalid.

10. Further, it is contended that the employee by entering

only the name of the respondent in his service records as his

wife suppressed the fact of his first marriage with

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi and the pending criminal case from

the department.

11. It is also vehemently contended by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-I that the precedents relied

upon by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ

petition filed by the respondent i.e., the judgment rendered by

the High Court of Madras in C.Sarojini Devi v. Director of ::8::

Local Fund Audit and others 1, relying upon the judgment in

S.Susheela @ Mary Margaret v. The Superintendent of

Police and another 2 are distinguishable. The learned counsel

contends that in the aforesaid Judgments, there was no

suppression of fact of contracting the second marriage and the

said fact was disclosed. The employees had nominated their

second wife, after the death of the first wife, in the said cases.

However, in the present case, the employee nominated the

respondent, while his first wife was still alive, by suppressing

the said fact, and as such, the ratio laid down in the said cases

relied upon by the learned Single Judge are neither relevant

nor applicable to the present case.

12. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader,

the very fact that the employee continued to pay maintenance

to Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi, until her death in the year 2014

corroborates her status as the legally wedded wife of the

employee. The learned Assistant Government Pleader basing

on the above contentions prayed to set aside the order passed

by the learned Single Judge.

MANU/TN/0413/2020

W.P.No.15806 of 2015 dated 18.06.2015 ::9::

The contentions on behalf of respondent

13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent

contended that the service records of the employee are of

paramount importance. That in the service records of the

employee, the name of the respondent was consistently

recorded as his wife from the beginning of his service. The

respondent was nominated as the person entitled to pension of

the employee according to the service records, and the

department has never objected it during the entire service

tenure of the employee or until his death in the year 2019.

14. It is further contended that at the time of death of the

employee on 13.12.2019, the respondent was the only

surviving wife, as Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi died in the year

2014. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that in

arguendo, even if Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi for some reason is

considered to be the wife of the employee, Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the

Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short "1980

Rules"), provides that both the widows would be entitled to

equal shares of the family pension which implies that in a

scenario with more than one widow, both of them would be ::10::

entitled to the family pension. The relevant portion of the Rule

is extracted as under:

Rule 50. Family pension -

(6)(a)(i) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares.

That on this very ground, the contention that the respondent

is not entitled for the pension of the employee as she is the

second wife of the employee, cannot be sustained. It is

contended that after the demise of Smt.Aantha Lakshmi in the

year 2014, the respondent as the only and surviving wife is

entitled to the pension of the deceased employee.

15. It is further contended that the finding in the criminal

case under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC was for the specific

and limited purpose of whether the employee had treated

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi with cruelty; and whether the

employee or the respondent was guilty of bigamy. The

respondent was discharged in the said case and the employee

was also acquitted. The criminal Court judgment did not

declare the respondent as the second wife. It is contended

that the observation in the criminal case is not binding for the ::11::

purpose of determination of pension. It is contended by the

learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent that the

contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader that the

observation of criminal Court as to the factum of marriage of

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi and the date of marriage being

conclusive, in view of the observations of the judgment of the

criminal Court, is completely misplaced and the argument is

wholly untenable.

16. The learned Senior Counsel contended that respondent

lived with the employee as his wife for over 45 years and was

blessed with three children and she was universally recognized

as the wife of the employee, in all the official records. The

learned Senior Counsel further contended that after such a

long period, the appellants cannot deny to the respondent, her

rightful family pension on the premise that respondent is the

second wife of the employee, more particularly in the absence

of any conclusive material on record.

17. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the burden

to prove that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife or

that the respondent is second wife of the employee, whose

marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the ::12::

marriage of the employee with Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi, lies

entirely on the department. And the department has miserably

failed to discharge this burden with any evidence, much less

conclusive evidence. The department has chosen to rely on the

weak stand of ambiguous observations made by the criminal

Court in a criminal case, which case has no bearing and which

observation are neither determinative nor conclusive of the

marital status of parties thereto or the dates of their respective

marriages with the employee.

18. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent supported

the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that being

well reasoned, it does not call for any interference.

Analysis and reasoning

19. We have carefully considered the pleadings, material on

record and the submissions of both sides. The pivotal issue is

whether the respondent is entitled to family pension as the

widow of the employee.

(i) The most crucial document in matters of service

benefits is the service record of the employee and the

nominations made by the employee in the service records. In ::13::

the present case, it is an admitted and undisputed fact that

the service register of the employee never showed the name of

Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi at any point in his entire service as

his wife.

(ii) The name of the respondent was consistently recorded

as the wife of the employee in the service records right from

the beginning of the service of the employee throughout his

service.

(iii) The department all along accepted this declaration

throughout the service of the employee and raised no objection

and took no disciplinary action against the employee for the

offence of bigamy during the life time of the deceased.

20. The appellants heavily rely on the observations made in

the Judgment in C.C.No.132 of 2006 on the file of learned VII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad which reliance is

completely misplaced for the following reasons.

(i) The observations of the criminal Court regarding the

marriage of Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi with the employee were

made for the purpose and in the context of offence under

Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The order or the observations of ::14::

the criminal Court in a matter involving an offence under

Section 498-A IPC are not a final and binding declaration of

the marital status, for all purposes, particularly for the

determination of entitlement under the Pension Rules.

(ii) The Judgment of criminal Court in C.C.No.132 of

2006 is not determinative of the date of marriage or as to, who

is the first wife of the employee for the purpose of pension.

21. The standard of proof in a criminal Court is different

from that of a civil matter. Moreover, the criminal Court did

not declare the respondent as the second wife of the employee.

The contemporaneous and determinative piece of evidence is

the service record of the employee, which clearly shows the

respondent as wife of the employee and the nominee for the

purpose of pension.

22. The learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on

the service records of the employee and the fact that the

respondent was the only surviving wife at the time of

employee's death.

23. The learned single Judge had correctly noted that as on

the date of death of the employee, the respondent was the only ::15::

surviving wife. The reliance placed by the appellants on

executive circular and memos which deny the pension to

second wife have no relevance or application to the facts of the

present case, when the status of the respondent being second

wife itself is not conclusively established by any civil Court.

24. The appellants have failed to produce any conclusive

evidence to prove that the respondent is not the legally wedded

wife of the employee. The appellants have also failed to

conclusively establish that the marriage of the respondent with

the employee was void.

25. The Judgment relied by the appellants are

undistinguishable of facts and was rightly held by learned

Single Judge and the facts and circumstance of those cases

were completely different as compared to the case in hand.

Even in the case relied by the appellants, the underlying

principle laid down is that long cohabitation leads

presumption of marriage. And in the present case, the