A void second marriage confers no spousal pension rights; family pension belongs to the first legally wedded wife.

Late Deepchand was employed as a Tradesman at Central Ordinance Depot, Cheoki, and died in harness on 27 July 2020.

Applicant No. 1, Archana Devi, claimed to be his legally wedded wife, having married him in 1997, and Applicant No. 2 was their daughter.

Applicant No. 1 had earlier obtained maintenance from Deepchand under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C.

After his death, the applicants sought family pension, terminal benefits and compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2.

Respondent No. 5, Sushma Devi, also claimed to be Deepchand’s wife and sought the same benefits for herself and the children allegedly born from her relationship with him.

The official respondents withheld action because Deepchand’s service records contained inconsistent declarations regarding his marital status and family members, and advised the claimants to obtain a legal-heir determination from a competent court.

The applicants therefore approached the Tribunal seeking family pension and other death-cum-retiral benefits for Applicant No. 1 and consideration of Applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment.

1. Whether Applicant No. 1, being the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, was entitled to consideration and payment of family pension and other pensionary benefits despite the competing claim of Respondent No. 5?

2. Whether the alleged subsequent marriage of Respondent No. 5 with the deceased, during the subsistence of his marriage with Applicant No. 1, conferred upon Respondent No. 5 the status of a legally wedded wife for claiming family pension?

3. Whether the children claimed by Respondent No. 5 were entitled to benefits as children of the deceased, notwithstanding the invalidity of the alleged marriage, and whether Applicant No. 2’s claim for compassionate appointment required separate consideration?

The Tribunal applied the Hindu-law principle that a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is void and does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife on the second spouse, relying on Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 431, and Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-A No. 3288 of 2017, decided on 31 July 2019.

The Tribunal also considered the effect of maintenance proceedings under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C., which did not dissolve the marital relationship between Applicant No. 1 and the deceased.

It further held that the invalidity of the alleged marriage did not, by itself, conclusively determine the status or entitlement of children allegedly born from the relationship; their paternity and entitlement to benefits had to be separately examined under the applicable service and pension rules.

The claim for compassionate appointment was required to be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable rules after assessing the competing claims and family circumstances.

The Tribunal found that Applicant No. 1’s marriage with Deepchand was not shown to have been dissolved by divorce or otherwise, and that the maintenance orders under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. did not terminate the subsisting marital relationship.

Since Respondent No. 5’s alleged marriage was stated to have taken place in 2005, during the continuance of the first marriage, it was treated as void under the principles stated in Rameshwari Devi and Chandra Kali; Respondent No. 5 consequently could not claim family pension as a legally wedded wife.

However, the Tribunal distinguished the status of the alleged second wife from the independent rights, if any, of the children claimed by her.

It directed an inquiry into whether those children were in fact the children of the deceased, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing and examining the service records and other relevant material.

The result of that inquiry was to govern distribution of post-retiral benefits and the subsequent consideration of Applicant No. 2’s compassionate-appointment claim.

Applicant No. 1 was held entitled to consideration for family pension as the first legally wedded wife, and the official respondents were directed to process and release the family pension in accordance with the applicable rules within three months of receiving the certified order.

Respondent No. 5 was held not entitled to family pension in the capacity of a legally wedded wife.

The official respondents were directed to conduct a reasoned inquiry into the paternity and status of the children claimed by Respondent No. 5 and thereafter determine their entitlement, if any, to benefits available to children.

Applicant No. 2’s claim for compassionate appointment was to be considered thereafter in accordance with the applicable rules, competing claims and relevant circumstances.

Depending on the inquiry, post-retiral benefits were to be paid either to the applicants alone or to the applicants and the children found to be Deepchand’s children.

No order as to costs was made.