Recently in the case of Smt. Shamal Mahadeo Tate V. The District Collector, Solapur & Ors. The Bombay High Court ruled that a second wife is not entitled to the deceased husband’s pension if the first marriage was not legally dissolved.
Court deduced that – “…the Petitioner in the present case would not be entitled to a family pension under the Pension Rules notwithstanding the death of the first wife as the Petitioner’s marriage to the deceased itself is void under the HMA.”
Tate will not be entitled to the family pension, thus according to Justices Milind N. Jadhav and S.J. Kathawalla. The Court recognized several Supreme Court decisions, notably Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar, in which the Apex Court decided that when the first spouse is alive and the marriage is legally valid, the putative second wife cannot be designated as the widow of the deceased government employee.
Dhrupad Patil was appointed as an amicus curiae by the Court. Patil argued in court that Tate and her husband’s marriage is illegal and that even if she is given the family pension, “it would render the legislative requirements of the HMA nugatory.”Patil also asserted that Mahadeo Narayan Tate married for the second time without first seeking the government’s permission, as required under Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 because his first wife was still alive.
Shamal Tate, represented by Adv. Ashok Tajane argued that a family pension can be provided to a second wife under Rule 116 (6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules. He further claimed that Tate is entitled to a pension because Rule 111 (5)(i) of the Pension Rules stipulates that “[lawfully wedded wife] or wives in the event of a male Government servant, including judicially separated wife or wives.”
Facts: Shamal Tate, the petitioner, in this case, is the second wife’ of Mahadeo Narayan Tate, a deceased government official. Mahadeo Tate apparently married his second wife because he had no children with his first.
Following Mahadeo Tate’s death, the first wife and Shamal Tate reached an agreement in which the first wife had a claim to the family pension, and the second wife received a large portion of the retirement benefits in the form of gratuity, group insurance, and leave salary.
Following that, the first wife died. Shamal Tate went to the authorities multiple times to obtain the family pension.
A joint meeting of the Principal Secretary (Finance), Additional Secretary (Law and Judiciary), and Additional Secretary (Finance) was conducted for the fourth time (Revenue). Tate was still not entitled to the family pension, according to the conclusion drawn during the meeting. She has filed a legal challenge to that decision.
The Bombay High Court ruled on February 17 that a second wife is not entitled to profit from her deceased husband’s pension since the Indian government has accepted monogamy in its legal apparatus of the institution of marriage. If the second marriage is contracted with her during the subsistence of the first marriage, i.e. in the absence of legal dissolution of the first, the said wife is barred from receiving the payment. The second lady cannot claim to be the widow of the deceased spouse, who is entitled to a pension upon his death. In addition, the Bombay High Court’s decision applies to deceased husbands who worked as government workers throughout their lives.
A division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice Milind Jadhav dismissed a case filed by Shamal Tate, a resident of Solapur, challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to deny her request to apply for her husband’s pension. Second wife of deceased husband ineligible for pension benefits.
The Bombay HC order enumerates that her husband Mahadeo, a peon at Solapur’s District Collector’s office, had passed away in the year 1996 and he was already married to another woman when he struck a marriage with the petitioner. It was submitted before the court that Tate and Mahadeo’s first wife had come to terms that the second wife will receive almost 90% of Mahadeo’s retirement securities and benefits. However, the first wife lost her life to cancer following which Tate approached the Maharashtra government seeking benefits of Mahadeo’s pension dues thereafter.
After numerous rounds of talks on the issue, the Maharashtra government rejected Tate’s four applications between 2007 and 2014, following which she knocked at the doors of the High Court in 2019. She had claimed that she was the mother of three children with Mahadeo, she was recognized as his wife in society. Therefore, she argued that she was eligible to receive his dues. She strengthened her submissions by virtue of the fact that the first wife was now dead and there was no one to receive pension benefits since then.
The agreement between Tate & Mahadeo’s first wife is not valid as it violates laws
Following Tate’s reasoning, the Bombay High Court ruled that various Supreme Court precedents establish that if the initial conjugal rights have not been severed by law, a second marriage must be declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act. Tate did not file her petition with “clean hands,” according to the Bench, and the deal with Mahadeo’s first wife further abandoned her rights to the pension.
Despite Tate’s agreement with Mahadeo’s late wife, she was prevented from claiming pension benefits because the five fundamental components of an enforceable contract were not met. One of the main requirements is that a legitimate contract must not be in violation of any applicable laws.
“The petitioner’s (Tate) marriage to the deceased is null and void since it occurred while the deceased’s first wife was still living and the first marriage was still in effect. This writ petition is dismissed as a result of the findings “The Bench noted.