Dismissed¶100

Smt. Susheelamma v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2025RSA/1522/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second wife pensionary benefits; family pension Rule 54(7) CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 — more than one widow, equal shares; Rules 50 and 51 CCS (Pension) Rules; Rule 21 CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 — marriage with spouse living, Central Government permission; Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Sections 5(i), 11 and 16 — void marriage, legitimacy of children; nomination in favour of first wife and children (appellant's ground); Postal Department employee death benefits; Karnataka HC RSA No. 1522 of 2023 (DEC), NC: 2025:KHC:36950, dismissed 16.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

None ¶100

Smt. Susheelamma Vs the Secretary — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶100

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff-appellant, claiming to be the second wife of the deceased M. Nanjundaswamy, is entitled to his pensionary benefits. +5 more

¶37

Court's answer

The second wife is not entitled to claim the deceased's pensionary benefits; the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit on that footing, and this Court adopted that conclusion in dismissing the second appeal.

¶93

Ratio / Principle

This Court found no merit in any of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum, including the second substantial question of law concerning Rule 54(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

¶94

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:36950) — Regular Second Appeal No. 1522 of 2023 (DEC), decided 16.09.2025 by V Srishananda, J.: Appeal dismissed. The appellant, claiming to be the second wife of late M. Nanjundaswamy (a Postal Department employee), had sued (OS No.259/2010, Civil Judge & JMFC, T. Narasipura; decree 04.01.2020) for declaration and pensionary/death benefits. The suit was dismissed after discussion of Rules 50 and 51 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, on the ground that the pensionary rules do not permit a second wife to claim pension. The first appeal (RA No.3/2020, Senior Civil Judge, T. Narasipura; judgment and decree 27.06.2023) was also dismissed: the first appellate court held (its paras 37-42) that since the deceased's first wife G.S. Mariyamma was alive at the time of the second marriage, that marriage was void under Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; no Central Government permission under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was shown; hence the plaintiff could not claim the benefit of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, even though Rule 54(7) provides that family pension payable to more than one widow shall be paid in equal shares. Before the High Court, five substantial questions of law were framed covering the appellant's status as legally wedded wife, Rule 54(7), Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the nominee's predeceasing the employee, and moulding of relief under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC. The Court, having perused Rule 54(7) meticulously, found no merit in any of the substantial questions of law and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1522 OF 2023 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE M. NANJUNADASWAMY, RESIDING AT 157, 1ST MIN ROAD, PARVATHI NILAYA, THRIVENI NAGRA, T. NARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 124.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE SECRETARY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PARLIAMENTARY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001

¶14

THE POST MASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDED OF POST OFFICE NANJANGUD DIVISION, NANJANGUD - 571 124.

¶16

HEAD POST MASTER KOLLEGAL POST OFFICE KOLLEGAL - 571 301

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶20

THE POST MASTER T. NARASIPURA POST OFFICE,

¶21

T. NARASIPURA - 571 124.

¶22

SMT MANJULA C/O JAYARATHNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶23

SMT JAYARATHNA W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT O.P. MALAPPAPURAM, KOLLEGALA - 571 301

¶25

SMT. VASANTHAKUMARI W/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT TAGARAPURA VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK - 571 301.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. RESHMA K.T, CGC FOR R1 TO R5)

¶28

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.3/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, T. NARASIPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.01.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.259/2010 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T.NARASIPURA.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

Heard Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for

¶36

the appellant and Smt.Reshma K. T., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶37

Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal claiming that she is the second wife and therefore, she is entitled for the pensionary benefits of deceased M. Nanjundaswamy.

¶38

Suit on due contest, came to be dismissed on the ground that the pensionary rules would not permit the second wife to claim the pension.

¶39

Rule 50 and 51 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules are discussed by the Trial Court in the categorical terms while deciding issue Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an

¶44

appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.3/2020 challenging the validity of the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶45

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and carried out a detailed discussion as what is the legal position in paragraph Nos.37 to 42 and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff.

¶46

For ready reference, paragraph Nos.37 to 42 are culled out hereunder:

¶47

37. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force on 18.05.1955. Hence, this Act governs the deceased, the plaintiff and the said G.S. Mariyamma. It is a condition for a valid Hindu marriage that the parties to a marriage should not have a living spouse at the time of marriage as per Section 5 (i) of the Act. If the said condition is violated, then such marriage performed in violation of such conditions becomes void marriage. Thus, the wife who is become the party to the said marriage does not get the legal status as the first wife gets. However, the children of such marriage become legitimate children in view of the provision of Section 16 of the Act.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

38. Therefore, the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased. In this regard, the finding of the trial court is also correct. The trial court has further held that the plaintiff not being the legally wedded wife of the deceased is not entitled to the death benefits and the pension of the deceased. But learned counsel for the plaintiff has mainly relied upon the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 and argued that the living widow is entitled to the pension as per the said rules. He has further argued that the said G.S. Mariyamma died in 1990 and she died without living any right to her children. Therefore, the defendants No.6 to 8 are also not entitled to the death benefits and pension of the deceased.

¶51

39. I have gone through the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. They apply to the case on hand since the deceased was an employee in the department of Post. It is clear from Rule 54 of Family Pension of the said Rules that the pension is to be paid on priority basis. The term of family is defined therein. Accordingly, the widow/widows or widower, unmarried son, unmarried daughter, dependent parents and dependent disabled siblings come under the said family.

¶52

40. Rule 54 (7) of the said Rules states that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to them in equal shares. In the present case, the first wife of the deceased died long back. The second wife of the deceased (Plaintiff) is alive. Now the question is whether she is entitled to the death benefits and pension of the deceased under the said Rule or not.

¶53

41. The above Rules govern the retirement and death benefit including the pension of the government

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

employees. Likewise, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 govern the conditions of services of the government employees. Rule 21 of the said Rules states that no government servant shall enter into or contact a marriage with a person having a spouse living and no government servant having a spouse living shall enter into or contact a marriage with any person. The proviso to the said Rule empowers the Central Government to permit a government servant to enter into or contact such marriage.

¶58

42. In the present case, there is no any document on record to show that the deceased took the permission of the Central Government before marrying the plaintiff. Hence, it is clear violation of the said Rule. When there is violation of the said Rule and when the second marriage of the deceased with the plaintiff is null and void in view of implication of Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, then the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In other words, she cannot claim the death benefits and pension of the deceased.

¶59

Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is

¶60

before this Court, on the following grounds and raising substantial questions of law:

¶61

Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that in view of the death of Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy, even if the claim of the children of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma is accepted, in view of her

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

death on 30.07.1990, the marriage of the Plaintiff with Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy is regularized and cumulative reading of oral and documentary evidence clearly establishes the fact that she is the legally wedded wife of Sri. Late M. Nanjundaswamy. This fact the Trial Court in Para No.27 of the Judgment, in view of the Nomination made in favour of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma and the Defendant No.6, the Plaintiff is not entitled for pensioner benefits and she is not the legally wedded wife of Sri. Late M. Nanjundaswamy. Even though both the Courts below given a signing that the Plaintiff is the wife but not legally wedded wife of the deceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy.

¶66

Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that on the death of First Wife Smt. G. S. Mariyamma (not admitted) the Plaintiff is entitled for pensioner benefits as she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy.

¶67

Both the Courts below have wrongly interpreted Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is having no effect in view of the death of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma on 31.07.1990 and she predeceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy who died on 09.11.2009.

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Both the Courts below have falled to take note of the fact that as per Section 50(6) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Pension Rules Family in relation to Government Services wife including second wife of Male Government Servant. Even both the Courts below have failed to interpret Rule 54(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which also stated that, in case a deceased Government Servant leaves behind more than one widow or widows, then family pension is payable to the widows in equal shares.

¶72

Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that Defendant Nos.6 to 8 have not adduced any evidence to corroborate the Written Statement filed by them. Without any proof, both the Courts have wrongly arrived at a conclusion that factum of marriage with the deceased is proved.

¶73

Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that Nomination will not give absolute right in favour of the Nominee under the law. Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that in view of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma predeceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy, the Plaintiff is entitled for pensioner benefits. Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that based on the Nomination exclusive right cannot be claimed by the Nominee.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Both the Courts below have wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiff is the Second Wife. Both the Courts below have failed to comply the law pertaining to pension contained in Rule 54(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Both the Courts below have erroneously applied Hindu Marriage Act and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the Suit and Appeal respectively, despite the Plaintiff Appeal is proved her case and despite she is entitled for the relief of declaration and pensioner benefits that was illegally denied by both the Courts below.

¶78

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW:

¶79

(a) Whether both the courts below have erred in dismissing the Suit/Appeal despite the Appellant has proved that she is the legally wedded wife of Sri. Late M. Nanjundaswamy and entitled for pensioner benefits?

¶80

(b) Whether both the courts below have misinterpreted the provisions related to pension as contained in Rule 54(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972?

¶81

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

(c) Whether both the Courts below have misinterpreted Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and thereby illegally denied the benefits of the Appellant?

¶84

(d) Whether both the courts below have failing to take note of the fact as to effect all benefits on death of Nominee viz. Smt. G. S. Mariyamma during life time of Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy?

¶85

(e) Even both the Courts below have failed to exercised power under order 7 rule 7 C.P.C. and would have moulded the relief?

¶86

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the

¶87

grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that both the Courts have not understood the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions especially the Rules and did not properly appreciate the fact that the second wife is also entitled for the pensionary benefits and as such, the very interpretation of Rule 54 (7) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 needs to be adjudicated in the appeal which is a pure question of law and sought for admitting the appeal.

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments

¶92

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously especially Rule 54 (7) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

¶93

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court dealt in extenso about the said aspect of the matter and also taken note of the fact that the second wife is not entitled to claim the pensionary benefits and has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

¶94

In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum much less the second substantial question of law.

¶95