Begin typing your search...

    Citing SC order, family pension ordered to 2nd wife

    Relying on a Supreme Court judgement which held that law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have co-habited continuously for a long time, the Madras High Court came to the rescue of the second wife of a doctor by directing the Director of Local Fund Audits to sanction family pension with effect from the date of her husband’s death.

    Citing SC order, family pension ordered to 2nd wife
    X
    Madras High Court

    Chennai

    As per the case, one Dr A Chinnasamy was married to one Pancholai and through her he had three daughters. During the subsistence of the first marriage, he married the petitioner C Sarojini Naidu on February 13, 1975 and had two male children and one female child through her. After the first wife died on April 02, 1997, he nominated the petitioner on May 11, 1999 to receive the family pension after his death.


    Following this, after Chinnasamy’s death on January 20, 2009, Sarojini made a representation to the Director of Local Fund Audits to continue with the payment of the family pension to her. But through a communication on February 1, 2016 grant of family pension was refused on the ground that the marriage between her and the deceased Chinnasamy was not valid and hence she cannot be his legal representative. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition was filed.


    However, Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruling in favour of the petitioner, said, “It is very easy to brand the petitioner as a concubine and deprive her of her livelihood. However, the fact remains that the petitioner lived with the deceased Dr A Chinnasamy from 1975 up to his death in 2009. This means that she lived with him for nearly 34 years and gave birth to three children.”


    Also, noting that if the petitioner had made this claim when the first wife is alive, then obviously the petitioner will not be entitled for family pension, since her relationship is not recognized by law, the judge said, “The march of law happens only while considering the co-habitation that continues after the death of the first wife. In the present case, the first wife died on 02.04.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner lived with the deceased Chinnasamy till his death on 20.01.2009.”


    “During this period, it can always be construed that the petitioner and the deceased Dr A Chinnasamy were living as husband and wife and their long co-habitation itself raises that presumption of marriage,” Justice Anand Venkatesh said while directing the sanction family pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of Chinnasamy and disburse the pension arrears, within twelve weeks. The petitioner shall be continued to be paid with the family pension till her lifetime, the judge said in his order.

    Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

    Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

    Click here for iOS

    Click here for Android

    migrator
    Next Story