Case Note & Summary
The appellants, the first wife and her two children of the deceased Ram Chandra Nirola, challenged the denial of a succession certificate and family pension, which had been granted solely to respondent no.1, the second wife. The deceased married respondent no.1 on 09.05.1987 during the subsistence of his first marriage, before the Hindu Marriage Act was extended to Sikkim. On 30.06.2008, he executed a Banda Patra (settlement deed) dividing his movable and immovable properties between the two wives, which was accepted and acted upon by the first wife. He also nominated respondent no.1 alone for family pension under Rule 38 of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990. After his death on 13.04.2015, the appellants applied for a succession certificate, which was denied by the District Judge and affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the second marriage was void under the Sikkim Rules of 1963, whether the first wife had a statutory right to equal share in family pension under Rule 40(6), and the effect of the settlement deed and nomination. The Court held that the second marriage was not invalidated as no material showed it was solemnized under the 1963 Rules, and Rule 27 preserved its validity. It further held that Rule 40(6) is conditional and does not confer an automatic right; the deceased's nomination of respondent no.1 alone was valid. The first wife, having accepted benefits under the settlement deed, was deemed to have waived any claim to family pension. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Second Marriage Validity - Sikkim Rules, 1963 - Rule 27 - The second marriage of the deceased with respondent no.1 on 09.05.1987, before the Hindu Marriage Act was extended to Sikkim, was not invalidated under the Sikkim Rules as no material was placed that it was solemnized under those rules; Rule 27 preserves validity of marriages not solemnized under its provisions (Paras 6-7). B) Succession and Pension - Family Pension - Nomination - Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 - Rules 35(5), 38, 40(6) - Family pension is not part of the estate of the deceased; Rule 40(6) is conditional and does not vest an automatic statutory right to equal share; entitlement depends on nomination by the government servant, which was made solely in favor of respondent no.1 (Paras 8-10). C) Contract and Waiver - Settlement Deed - Acceptance and Estoppel - The first wife accepted and acted upon the settlement deed dated 30.06.2008 dividing movable and immovable properties; she cannot renege from it and is deemed to have waived her claim to family pension in lieu of benefits received (Paras 7, 10). D) Precedent - Vidhyadhari & Ors. vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 238 - Followed; where the deceased resided with the second wife to the exclusion of the first and nominated her for pension, the claim of the second wife was upheld; balancing equities not required here due to settlement deed (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first wife is entitled to equal share in family pension despite the deceased having nominated only the second wife and having executed a settlement deed dividing properties between the two wives
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the second marriage was not invalid, the nomination in favor of respondent no.1 was valid, and the first wife waived her claim by accepting benefits under the settlement deed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Family pension is not part of estate of deceased
- Rule 40(6) of Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules
- 1990 is conditional
- nomination under Rule 38 determines entitlement
- second marriage not invalid under Sikkim Rules of 1963
- settlement deed acted upon bars reneging
