Madras High Court: Rejected Widow’s Plea For Family Pension, Says Contracting Second Marriage, ‘Misconduct

The Madras High Court in the case Smt. Batasiya Maravi vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh observed that the second wife of a government employee is not entitled to family pension, if the government employee does the second marriage was done without obtaining a divorce from the first wife and without obtaining the prior permission which needs to be taken from the State Government as mandated under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (the Conduct) Rules 1965.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Agrawal in the case observed while dismissing a petition filed by the woman, wherein challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Police rejecting her claim to get family pension post the death of her husband’s.
In the present case, the wife in the plea filed also contended that her late husband had divorced his first wife and she had sworn an affidavit before the notary public to the effect that the woman had taken divorce in the year 1998-1999 as per the tribal customs and traditions. Further, it has also been stated by the woman that her husband and the first wife were staying separately for the last 15 years and the latter had no claim on his body and on his property.
The counsel, Advocate Manas Mani Verma, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh submitted before the court that as per the rules of 1965, the government employee is not being entitled for maintaining two wives. Further, the Advocate Manas Mani Verma argued that the affidavit sworn in before the notary is not a proof of divorce from the first wife.
It has also been agreed by the bench headed by Justice Agarwal that the same being irrespective of the personal laws, no government servant is entitled to remarry without first obtaining the official permission. Further, the court also stated that no such permission was produced by the petitioner in the plea and thus the claim made for pensionary benefits had no legal sanctity in terms of law.
Accordingly, the court held that the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.