Second Wife Not Eligible for Pension if Marriage Was Void, Says Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that the second wife of a retired government employee cannot claim family pension if the marriage was legally void.

The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan held that if a man marries a second time while his first wife is still alive, such a marriage is void in law. Even if the first wife later passes away, the second wife does not become entitled to family pension.

What Was the Case About?

The case arose from the pension claim of a retired Block Development Officer. He had married his second wife in 1992 while his first wife was still alive. After retiring in 2007, he requested that both wives be named as nominees for his family pension.

However, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu rejected the request in 2009, stating that the second marriage was invalid. The second wife later approached the High Court and, in 2021, a single judge allowed her name to be included in the Pension Payment Order.

The Accountant General challenged this order before a Division Bench.

What Did the Court Say?

The Division Bench overturned the earlier decision. The Court relied on:

• The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978
• The Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973

Under the Conduct Rules, a government servant cannot marry again while his or her spouse is alive. Doing so amounts to serious misconduct and can invite departmental action.

The Court clarified that family pension is a welfare benefit. It can only be granted strictly as per the rules. Since the second marriage was performed during the lifetime of the first wife, it was legally void. Therefore, the second wife could not claim pension benefits.

The Court also referred to previous judgments which state that only legally valid marriages can give rise to pension rights.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Accountant General and set aside the single judge’s order. As a result, the second wife was held not entitled to receive family pension.