Long cohabitation and subsequent dissolution of prior marriage entitle the second wife to family pension benefits.

The Applicant, a retired Pointsman from Southern Railway, sought the inclusion of his second wife’s name, Ms. Tamaraiselvi, in his Pension Payment Order (PPO) for family pension benefits

The Applicant married his first wife, Ms. Rani, in 1979, who allegedly deserted him in 1995, leading to a "Panchayat Muchalika" (customary divorce) in 1996

To care for his children, including a physically challenged son, the Applicant married Ms. Tamaraiselvi in 1999

A formal decree of divorce from the first wife was obtained from the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, in 2018, and the second marriage was subsequently registered in 2019

The Respondents rejected the Applicant's representations to include the second wife in service records via impugned orders dated 19.03.2024, 24.04.2024, and 26.04.2024, contending the second marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage

1. Whether the second wife is entitled to be included in the Railway service records and PPO for the purpose of family pension despite the marriage being contracted before the formal dissolution of the first marriage.

2. Whether long cohabitation and a subsequent formal dissolution of the first marriage create a legal presumption in favor of the validity of the second marriage for pensionary benefits.

Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, which stipulates that where family pension is payable to more than one widow, it shall be paid in equal shares

Law presumes in favor of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman cohabitate continuously for a long spell, as held in Dhannulal v. Ganeshram and Civil Appeal No. 5262/2023.

Long cohabitation following the death or dissolution of the first marriage entitles the second wife to be considered a legal spouse for pensionary purposes, as per C. Sarojini Devi v. Director of Local Funds Audits.

The Tribunal reasoned that the issue was no longer res integra given the amendment to Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, which recognizes the rights of multiple widows.

The Tribunal observed that although the formal divorce decree was granted in 2018, the customary divorce in 1996 and the long cohabitation since 1999 created a strong presumption of marriage.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant and Tamaraiselvi had been living as husband and wife for decades and had a child together.

The Tribunal highlighted an inconsistency in the Respondents’ stance: while they denied the legal status of the second wife for pension purposes, they had already issued a Southern Railway Medical Card in her name.

The Tribunal concluded that the "march of law" leans towards protecting the livelihood of a long-term partner rather than branding them a concubine, especially after the first marriage is legally dissolved.

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashing the impugned orders dated 19.03.2024, 24.04.2024, and 26.04.2024 and directed the Respondents to record Ms. Tamaraiselvi’s name in the service records and incorporate it into the Pension Book within three months.

No order as to costs was made.