Allowed¶10

S.Jancy Lilly Pushpam v. The Assistant Divisional Engineer

Madras HC19 Dec 2025WP/8850/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: pension benefits; terminal/service benefits of deceased government servant; second wife; marriage during subsistence of first marriage; presumption of marriage; long cohabitation; desertion by first wife; consent to divorce; Indian Divorce Act; IDOP.No.11 of 2015; Family Court Erode; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Section 226 Constitution of India; Dhannulal v. Ganeshram 2015 (12) SCC 301; Andrahennedige Dinohamy 1928 (27) LW 678; C.Sarojini Devi W.P.No.34952 of 2019; Highways Construction and Maintenance Department; Madras High Court; P.T. Asha J.; decision date 19.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Payment of the deceased husband's service benefits and pension benefits to the petitioner within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs. ¶10

S.Jancy Lilly Pushpam Vs The Assistant Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Payment of the deceased husband's service benefits and pension benefits to the petitioner within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose marriage to the deceased government servant was contracted during the subsistence of his first marriage, is entitled to the pension and service (terminal) benefits of the deceased. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Applying the presumption of marriage from long cohabitation recognised in Dhannulal (2015 (12) SCC 301), the Court concluded the petitioner is entitled to the deceased's benefits, set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

From the affidavit, documents and the divorce-petition judgment, the Court found long cohabitation between the petitioner and the deceased Suresh Kumar, two daughters born of the union, and that the deceased and his first wife had been living separately since 2003.

¶7

Key takeaways

The first wife had admitted in her counter to the IDOP that she had had no association with the deceased Suresh Kumar since 2003, and had consented to the divorce.ratio¶7
The 1st respondent was directed to pay all the service benefits of the deceased husband to the petitioner and to pay the pension benefits within 8 weeks; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed and no costs were awarded.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha J.), W.P.No.8850 of 2023, decided 19.12.2025 - S. Jancy Lilly Pushpam, whose marriage to Suresh Kumar, a Highways Department employee, was solemnised on 07.02.2005 while the husband's first marriage subsisted (the first wife, Prabha Hari, had deserted him in 2003 and later consented to a divorce decreed on 17.03.2016 in IDOP.No.11 of 2015, Family Court, Erode, under the Indian Divorce Act), was refused the deceased's terminal benefits by the 1st respondent's order Ku.No.486/2022/E Ne Vu dated 23.01.2023 on the ground that the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first. Noting the long cohabitation and the two daughters born of the union, and relying on Dhannulal and others Vs. Ganeshram and another, 2015 (12) SCC 301 (presumption of marriage from long cohabitation, a principle also noted as followed by a Co-ordinate Bench in C.Sarojini Devi, W.P.No.34952 of 2019), the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, and directed the 1st respondent to pay the service and pension benefits of the deceased to the petitioner within 8 weeks; miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 19.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No. 8850 of 2023 & W.M.P.Nos. 9007 & 9010 of 2023

¶7

S.Jancy Lilly Pushpam

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer (H), Highways Construction and Maintenance Department, Kangeyam, Tirupur.

¶11

2.The Divisional Engineer Office of the Divisional Engineer (H), Highways Construction and Maintenance Department, Tirupur.

¶12

3.The Accountant General Office of the Accountant General, Accounts and Entitlements Tamil Nadu 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai- 600 018. ...Respondents

¶13

1/8

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Ku.No.486/ 2022 / E Ne Vu dated 23.01.2023 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultra vires and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay all the service benefits of her deceased husband to the petitioner and to pay the pension benefits continuously by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 06.01.2023

¶17

For Petitioners : Ms. S.Thankira

¶18

For Respondents : Mr. P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General

¶19

Assisted by Mrs. S.Anitha Special Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging rejection of the

¶22

petitioner’s request for paying the pension and service benefits due to her deceased husband to the petitioner on the representation dated 06.01.2023. The facts are briefly set out herein below.

¶23

2/8

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶26

The petitioner married one Suresh Kumar on 07.02.2005 and

¶27

was living with him along with her mother-in-law, Amma Kannu. The petitioner gave birth to two daughters out of the wedlock on 04.11.2005 and 29.11.2008, respectively. The petitioner’s husband was earlier married to one Prabha Hari. While the marriage was subsisting, the petitioner’s husband had contracted marriage with the petitioner herein. The said Prabha Hari was stated to have deserted the deceased Suresh Kumar in the year 2003, after which the petitioner had got married to him.

¶28

The petitioner’s contention is that, at the time of marriage she

¶29

was unaware about the marriage of her husband with the said Prabha Hari. Thereafter, the said Suresh Kumar had made an application for

¶30

divorce under the Indian Divorce Act, in IDOP.NO.11 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Erode and had obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage on 17.03.2016. The petitioner’s husband passed away 6 years after the divorce

¶31

3/8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶34

After the death of her husband, the petitioner made an

¶35

application for grant of terminal benefits which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that her marriage to the deceased government servant taken place when the first marriage was subsisting. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

In a counter affidavit, the respondents have reiterated the very

¶37

same fact.

¶38

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records.

¶39

From the narration in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the documents, it is seen that the said Suresh Kumar and the petitioner had a long cohabitation and have begotted two girl children. It is also evident from a perusal of the Judgement in the divorce petition, namely, IDOP.No.11 of 2015, that the deceased Suresh Kumar and his first wife had been living separately since the year 2003. 4/8

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶42

In her counter to the said IDOP, the said Prabha Hari had clearly admitted that she has not had any association with the deceased Suresh Kumar since the year 2003. Her only contention was that the said Suresh Kumar had not taken any steps to take her back to the matrimonial home. In fact she has consented for divorce.

¶43

In the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhannulal and others Vs. Ganeshram and another – 2015 (12) SCC 301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that long cohabitation of the petitioner with the deceased husband is enough to presume marriage. The learned Judges relying upon the Judgement reported in Andrahennedige Dinohamy Vs. Wijetunge Liyanapatabedige Balahamy – 1928 (27)

¶44

LW 678, had observed as follows:

¶45

“15.It is well settled that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long time. However, the presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. A heavy burden lies on a party, who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. In the instant case, instead of adducing unimpeachable evidence by the plaintiff, a plea was taken that the defendant has failed to prove the fact that Phoolbasa Bai was not the legally married wife of Chhatrapati. The High

¶46

5/8

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶49

Court, therefore, came to a correct conclusion by recording a finding that Phoolbasa Bai was the legally married wife of Chhatrapati.”

¶50

This Judgement has been relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench

¶51

of this Court in WP.No.34952 of 2019 – C.Sarojini Devi Vs. The

¶52

Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai, dated 23.01.2020.

¶53

Considering the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The 1^st respondent is directed to pay all the service benefits of her deceased husband to the petitioner and to pay the pension benefits, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶54

19.12.2025

¶55

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶56

kan

¶57

6/8

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶60

¶61

1.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer (H), Highways Construction and Maintenance Department, Kangeyam, Tirupur.

¶62

2.The Divisional Engineer Office of the Divisional Engineer (H), Highways Construction and Maintenance Department, Tirupur.

¶63

3.The Accountant General Office of the Accountant General, Accounts and Entitlements Tamil Nadu 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai- 600 018.

¶64

7/8

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.No.8850 of 2023

¶67

P.T. ASHA, J