Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a dispute over family pension of Late Subedar Pundalik Bhave, who served in the Indian Army. The appellants are Smt. Shiramabai (alleged second wife) and her two children, claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased. The respondents are the Army authorities who denied pension on the ground that the marriage of appellant No.1 was bigamous. The deceased married Parvati in 1972 (died 1975), then Anusuya in 1975, and later married appellant No.1 in 1981 while still married to Anusuya. He divorced Anusuya in 1990 and lived with appellant No.1 until his death in 2001. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of appellants, but the first appellate court reversed it. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that although the marriage was void initially, the subsequent divorce and long cohabitation, coupled with the fact that the children were legitimate, entitled them to family pension. The court directed release of pensionary benefits within three months.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Validity of Marriage - Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage - Section 5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The marriage of appellant No.1 with the deceased was solemnized on 21st February, 1981, while the deceased's marriage with Anusuya was subsisting. Such marriage is void ab initio under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the deceased divorced Anusuya on 15th November, 1990, and thereafter continued to live with appellant No.1 until his death in 2001. The court held that the subsequent divorce does not validate the earlier void marriage, but the appellant No.1 and her children are entitled to family pension as the deceased had recognized them as his family and the pension scheme is a beneficial legislation. (Paras 1-12)
B) Service Law - Family Pension - Entitlement of Widow and Children - Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part
I) - The appellants claimed family pension after the death of Late Subedar Pundalik Bhave. The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the marriage of appellant No.1 was void. The court held that the object of family pension is to provide relief to the dependents of the deceased employee. Since the deceased had divorced his first wife and had lived with appellant No.1 for over a decade, and the children were his legitimate children, they are entitled to pensionary benefits. The court directed the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the appellants within three months. (Paras 13-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant No.1, who married the deceased during the subsistence of his earlier marriage, is entitled to family pension after the deceased divorced his first wife and the marriage with appellant No.1 continued until his death
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, and restored the decree of the Trial Court. The respondents are directed to release the pensionary benefits to the appellants within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Second marriage during subsistence of first marriage is void
- but subsequent divorce of first wife validates the second marriage retrospectively for pension purposes
- Family pension is a beneficial provision and should be liberally construed
- Pensionary benefits are not a bounty but a right of the employee and his dependents
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 29319 of 2019)
Smt. Shiramabai W/o Pundalik Bhave & Others
The Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C. Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar State and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and direction to disburse pensionary benefits
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought declaration that appellant No.1 is legally wedded wife of Late Subedar Pundalik Bhave and appellants No.2 and 3 are legitimate children, and direction to respondents to release pensionary benefits
Filing Reason
Respondents rejected the claim for family pension on the ground that appellant No.1's marriage was void as it was solemnized during subsistence of deceased's earlier marriage with Anusuya
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed suit in favor of appellants; First Appellate Court reversed; High Court dismissed Regular Second Appeal
Issues
Whether the marriage of appellant No.1 with the deceased, solemnized during subsistence of his earlier marriage, is valid and entitles her to family pension
Whether the appellants are entitled to pensionary benefits of the deceased despite the initial void marriage
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the deceased divorced Anusuya in 1990 and thereafter lived with appellant No.1 until his death, and the children are legitimate, thus entitled to pension
Respondents argued that the marriage of appellant No.1 was void ab initio under Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore she is not entitled to family pension
Ratio Decidendi
A marriage solemnized during subsistence of an earlier marriage is void ab initio, but subsequent divorce of the first spouse does not validate the second marriage retrospectively. However, for the purpose of family pension, which is a beneficial provision, the court may consider the long cohabitation and recognition of the second wife and children as family, especially when the first wife has not claimed any benefits. The children from such marriage are legitimate and entitled to pension.
Judgment Excerpts
The marriage of appellant No.1 with the deceased was solemnized on 21st February, 1981, while the deceased's marriage with Anusuya was subsisting. Such marriage is void ab initio under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
However, the deceased divorced Anusuya on 15th November, 1990, and thereafter continued to live with appellant No.1 until his death in 2001. The court held that the subsequent divorce does not validate the earlier void marriage, but the appellant No.1 and her children are entitled to family pension as the deceased had recognized them as his family and the pension scheme is a beneficial legislation.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Original Suit No. 73/05 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chikodi, which was decreed on 22nd December, 2007. The respondents appealed in Regular Appeal No. 70 of 2008 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, who reversed the decree on 16th September, 2010. The appellants then filed Regular Second Appeal No. 6079 of 2010 before the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad, which was dismissed on 25th June, 2013. The appellants filed a Review Application, and the High Court clarified that the dismissal was on merits. Thereafter, the appellants filed SLP(C) No. 29319 of 2019 before the Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2023 and allowed on 22nd August, 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 5(i), Section 11
