The Term 'Wife' Would Include 'Second Wife' For The Purpose Of Family Pension: Andhra Pradesh HC
While upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the object of providing family pension to wife after the death of the husband / government employee cannot be different from the object of providing maintenance during lifetime of the husband in case of divorce. And the term 'wife' will include 'second wife' for the purpose of family pension.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice K. Manmadha Rao observed that “Rule 50 of the Rules 1980 is with intend to give relief to the woman becoming wife. Under such circumstances, even the wife from the second marriage was made entitled for family pension, as the main object of this rule was to give family pension to the wives i.e., more than one, and for that reason, to clarify the expression „wife‟ used in Rule 50 (12) of the Rules 1980, Circular Memo dated 11.09.1996 was issued providing that irrespective of the personal Laws. The only thing that requires consideration is the permission from the department for second marriage”.
Advocate Sreemannarayana Vattikuti appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Satish Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of late Gaddam Danam, who worked as a Warden in the Office of the District Social Welfare retired in 2011 and passed away in 2014. The petitioner approached respondents for retirement benefits but found that another woman was claiming similar benefits as the nominee of Gaddam Danam. The petitioner asserts that her marriage to her late husband took place in 1975 and they had a son, and she was unaware of any second marriage. Legal proceedings followed, including divorce petitions, and the petitioner's contention is that her marriage remained valid until her late husband’s death, making her the rightful beneficiary. The fifth respondent i.e., second marriage, asserts that she married the petitioner’s late husband in 1986 and had three daughters out of the wedlock, and cared for the petitioner’s husband during his illness. Both parties filed claims for pension and benefits. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) ruled that both the petitioner and the fifth respondent are entitled to family pension benefits, considering them both as legally recognized wives under Rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980. The petitioner challenged this ruling, arguing that the fifth respondent's marriage was not valid due to existing legal marriage between her and Gaddam Danam.
After considering the submission, the Bench noted the complex marital situation between the petitioner and the fifth respondent regarding their claim to late Gaddam Danam's benefits.
The Bench considered the fact that the late husband recognized the fifth respondent as his wife in official records, including service documents.
Notably, the Bench found that the Tribunal acknowledged that while the fifth respondent's marriage occurred during the petitioner's existing marriage with him, she did not attain the legal status of a second wife due to the continuation of the first marriage.
Despite this, the Bench pointed out that the Tribunal held that the fifth respondent's role as Gaddam Danam's wife was recognized in various aspects, and her claim for benefits was valid based on his nomination and their acknowledged relationship.
Therefore, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Vidhyadhari & Tulsa Devi Nirola, wherein it was held that family pension is not the estate of the deceased, the High Court awarded the arrears of maintenance i.e., Rs. 3,60,000 to the petitioner.
For the remaining service benefits, the High Court assigned the amount to the fifth respondent, including medical bill claims, and concluded that family pension was to be divided equally between the petitioner and the fifth respondent.
Cause Title: Gaddam Ruth Victoria v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors
Click here to read/download the Judgment
