Dismissed

Pushpalatha v. the Principal Accountant

Madras HC18 Jul 2019WP(MD)/11578/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a decision to include the petitioner as a nominee in her husband's pension. The Court held that since the petitioner was the second wife married during the first wife's lifetime, the marriage was null and void, denying her claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs to either party as the petitioner's claim lacked merit due to the second marriage's invalidity.

Pushpalatha Vs the Principal Accountant — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2019 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶4

W.P[MD]No.11578 of 2014

Pushpalatha

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Accountant General, Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) No.261, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶9

2.The District Forest Officer, Varusanadu Soil Conservation Office, Theni Division, N.R.T. Nagar, Theni.

¶10

3.The Treasury Officer, Madurai.

¶11

4.The Assistant Treasury Officer, Mellur Post & Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass necessary orders in favour of the petitioner thereby including her name as wife in the pension payment order of her husband Rajamanickam (Pension Payment Order No.950526) by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.11.2013.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For R 1 : Mr.P.Ganasekaran For R 2 to R4 : Mr.D.Muruganandham

¶14

Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent to pass necessary orders in favour of the petitioner including her name as a legally wedded wife in the pension payment order of her husband Rajamanickam by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.11.2013.

¶17

2.The husband of the writ petitioner was employed as a Forester and retired from service on 31.01.1996., on attaining the age of superannuation. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner who is the second wife of Rajamanickam, claims that her name should be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ included as a nominee in the pension book as well as the service records of Rajamanickam.

¶18

¶19

3.Mr.Rajamanickam, who was employed as Forester is now receiving pension from the Government. He is a state pensioner. The petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that she is the second wife of the pensioner and therefore, her name is to be incorporated as nominee in the pension book.

¶20

4.Learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, made a submission that the writ petitioner admittedly is the second wife of the pensioner. The second marriage was solemnised during the life time of the first wife. When the second marriage with the writ petitioner was solemnised during the life time of the first wife, the second marriage is null and void and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be considered as a legally wedded wife of the employee.

¶21

5.The legal principles in this regard are settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.Rajathi Vs. Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO reported in (2018) 5 MLJ 385 . Even

¶22

as per the pension rules, during the life time of the first wife, any marriage solemnised by the employee cannot be considered as a valid marriage and the spouse is not entitled for any family pension. In the present case on hand, the writ petitioner married the employee during the life time of the first wife of the employee. This being the factum, the direction sought for to include the name of the writ petitioner as nominee in the pension book cannot be considered at all.

¶23

6.Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

// True Copy //

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

¶29

1.The Principal Accountant General,Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E)No.261, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶30

2.The District Forest Officer,Varusanadu Soil Conservation Office, Theni Division,N.R.T. Nagar, Theni.

¶31

3.The Treasury Officer,Madurai.

¶32

4.The Assistant Treasury Officer,Mellur Post & Taluk, Madurai District.

¶33

+1cc to the Spl.Govt.Pleader Sr.No.76288

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

MR W.P[MD]No.11578 of 2014 18.07.2019

¶36

NA (02.08.2019) 2P :6C

Pushpalatha v. the Principal Accountant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpalatha v. the Principal Accountant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.M.Arunachalam, Vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar

Matheeeswaran, Vs the District Collector

Mariammal Vs the District Collector

S.Thangiah, Vs the District Elementary

Mr.G.Henry Bala Singh, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Ali, S/O Rahimansha, Vs the District Treasury Officer