The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking family pension, holding that despite the technical invalidity of a second marriage, the nomination made by the deceased employee in favour of his second wife could not be ignored. The Court observed that the law must be interpreted in a manner that upholds fairness and protects the legitimate expectations of individuals, especially when the nominee had been living with the deceased and had contributed to the family welfare.
The petitioner, claiming to be the second wife of a deceased government employee, approached the High Court after her application for family pension was denied. She contended that although she married the deceased during the subsistence of his first marriage, the first wife had passed away years earlier, and the petitioner had been living with the deceased and taking care of all the children, both from the first and second marriage. She was also listed as the nominee for death-cum-gratuity benefits. The respondents, however, refused to sanction her family pension, citing the need for a succession certificate.
The petitioner argued that her status as the nominated beneficiary, her cohabitation with the deceased, and her care for the children entitled her to receive the family pension without additional formalities.
The respondents, through Mr. F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader, countered that the petitioner’s marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, as it was solemnized during the lifetime of a valid first marriage. Therefore, they contended that her claim to family pension could not be entertained, and a writ of Mandamus should not be issued.
The Court acknowledged that, strictly under law, a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is void. However, it emphasised the factual matrix of the case, noting that the deceased had expressly nominated the petitioner as the beneficiary for all death-related benefits, including family pension. It further recorded that no other individual had been nominated for these benefits, and the petitioner had been cohabiting with the deceased and managing family responsibilities, which substantiated the nomination.
The Court observed that the nomination and conduct of the deceased outweighed the technical invalidity of the marriage for the purpose of entitlement to family pension. It stressed that the law should function to provide equitable relief and should not be used as a tool to create hardship or injustice.
The Court set aside the impugned order denying the family pension and directed the respondents to grant the pension to the petitioner as eligible. The Court mandated that this exercise be completed within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed, there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case Title: Chellathai Vs. The Joint Director & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (MD) No. 2810 of 2024
Coram: Justice K. Kumaresh Babu
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. R.Karunanidhi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. F. Deepak (Special Government Pleader)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
