2000 (1) TMI 932 - SC - Indian Laws

Void marriage offspring entitled to pension & gratuity share until majority under Hindu Marriage Act. Legitimacy upheld.

Rameshwari Devi Versus State Of Bihar And Others

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Patna High Court, ruling that children from the void marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi are ... Payment of family pension and death-cum- retirement gratuity to two wives of Narain Lal, who died in 1987 while posted as Managing Director, Rural Development Authority of the State of Bihar Held that:- After the death of Narain Lal, inquiry was made by the State Government as to which of the wives of Narain Lal was his legal wife. This was on the basis of claims filed by Rameshwari Devi. Inquiry was quite detailed one and there are in fact two witnesses examined during the course of inquiry being (1) Sant Prasad Sharma, teacher, DAV High School, Danapur and (2) Sri Basukinath Sharma, Shahpur Maner who testified to the marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal having witnessed the same. That both Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi were living as husband and wife and four sons were born to Yogmaya Devi from this wedlock has also been testified during the course of inquiry by Chandra Shekhar Singh, Rtd. District Judge, Bhagalpur, Smt. (Dr.) Arun Prasad, Sheohar, Smt. S.N. Sinha, w/o Sri S.N. Sinha, ADM and others. Other documentary evidence were also collected which showed Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal were living as husband and wife. Further, the sons of the marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal were shown in records as sons of Narain Lal. Thus Learned single Judge was correct in his judgment to held that children born to Narain Lal from the wedlock with Yogmaya Devi were entitled to share the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and further that family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attained majority Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the second marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi.2. Entitlement to family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity.3. Legitimacy of children from the second marriage.4. Validity of the inquiry conducted by the State Government.5. Applicability of Conduct Rules regarding second marriage.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Second Marriage:The dispute concerns the legitimacy of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi. The appellant, the first wife, contended that there was no valid marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi. The State Government and the High Court held that the marriage was void under Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as Narain Lal's first wife was still alive. Despite living together since 1963 and having four sons, the marriage was deemed void.2. Entitlement to Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity:The primary issue was the entitlement to family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity after Narain Lal's death. The learned single Judge ruled that the children from the second marriage were entitled to a share of the family pension and gratuity until they attained majority, but Yogmaya Devi was not entitled to anything. The Division Bench upheld this decision, and the Supreme Court also affirmed it. The State Government initially sanctioned full benefits to the first wife but later, based on the High Court's order, sanctioned 50% of the benefits to the minor children of the second marriage.3. Legitimacy of Children from the Second Marriage:The Court referred to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which legitimizes children from a void marriage. The learned single Judge held that the children from the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi were legitimate and entitled to claim a share in the family pension and gratuity. This was upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the children are legitimate under the law despite the void marriage.4. Validity of the Inquiry Conducted by the State Government:The appellant's counsel argued that the State Government's inquiry into the marriage was incompetent and without lawful authority. The Court, however, held that the State Government is required to conduct an inquiry to determine the rightful claimant to pensionary benefits in the absence of a nomination. The inquiry was detailed and involved testimonies and documentary evidence, concluding that Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi lived as husband and wife. The Supreme Court found the inquiry reasonable and bona fide, dismissing the appellant's objections.5. Applicability of Conduct Rules Regarding Second Marriage:The appellant's counsel referred to Rule 21 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules and Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976, which restrict second marriages for government servants. The Court noted that while Narain Lal could have been charged with misconduct for contracting a second marriage, no disciplinary proceedings were held during his lifetime. The Court emphasized that the issue at hand was the entitlement to pensionary benefits, not disciplinary action for misconduct.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, affirming that the children from the void marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi are legitimate and entitled to a share in the family pension and gratuity until they attain majority. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.