BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27/08/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P(MD)No.8508 Of 2009 G.Sukumar .. Petitioner vs The Accountant General(A&E), Tamil Nadu,Chennai-18. .. Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pass appropriate order including the petitioner's wife Pushpavalli in the Pension benefits file No.P10/3/S220-1335/AR/2004-2005/3322. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Vijaiganapathy ^For Respondent ... Mr.P.Gunasekaran, ACGSC :ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Vijayaganapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner was originally married one Umadevi and by presenting
a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage between
them was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by order dated
14.09.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner married one Pushpavalli on 26.10.1998
and the marriage was also registered in the Registrar’s Office, Chokkikulam.
The petitioner is a retired Tamil Pandit and hence, he applied to the respondent
to include the name of his second wife Pushpavalli in the official records so
that she can get the pension after his death and requested the respondent to
enter her name in the official records. That was refused by the respondent by
passing an order in No.AG(A&E)/PEN, dated 30.11.2004. Hence, this Writ Petition
has been filed by the petitioner for the relief stated supra.
3. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondent would submit that though the petitioner claims to have
married one Pushpavalli on 26.10.1998, it is admitted that a daughter was born
to the petitioner and his second wife on 17.12.1998 and therefore, the marriage
must have been solemnized during the pendency of the first marriage which was
dissolved only on
14.09.1998 and therefore, Pushpavalli cannot be the legally wedded wife of the
petitioner.
4. It is seen from the order of the respondent that respondent proceed on
surmise on the ground that his daughter was born on 17.12.1998 and hence, he
ought to have married Pushpavalli during the subsistence of the first marriage.
The assumption is basically wrong. It is proved by the petitioner by
production of marriage certificate that he married Pushpavalli only on
26.10.1998. Further, for begetting a child, there is no need to undergo a form
of marriage.
5. Hence, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has proved that
his first marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on
14.09.1998 and then only he contracted a second marriage with Pushpavalli on
26.10.1998 and therefore, the said Pushpavalli is the legally wedded wife of the
petitioner and hence, the respondent is bound to include the name of
Pushpavalli in the official records for claiming pension benefits.
6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent is directed
to include the name of Pushpavalli as
legally wedded wife of the petitioner in the pension records as prayed for by
the petitioner. No costs.
vsn
To
The Accountant General(A&E),
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-18.