AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard Mr. K. Vijayaganapathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Gunasekaran, learned Additional
Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
The petitioner was originally married one Umadevi and by presenting a petition u/s 13B 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.