Second Wife Though Not Legally Wedded Entitled To Protection For Service Claims Of Deceased Husband: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a second wife is entitled for service and terminal benefits of her deceased husband, even if she does not acquire the status of “legally wedded wife”.

"We are of the considered view that in such matters, even if it is found that the second wife does not acquire the status of wife, for the marriage having been contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, still for the service benefits and service claims of the deceased husband, she is entitled for protection. The endeavour of the Courts has always been to balance the equities amongst two wives though the second may not be understood in the strict sense as "wife", a legally wedded." held the Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice K. Manmadha Rao.

The writ was filed by G. Ruth Victoria, the lawfully wedded wife of Late Gaddam Danam (as per Christian personal laws), challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, wherein both wives of Late Gaddam Danam were held entitled to his terminal and other benefits due to him. The Tribunal held that since Rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules,1980 allows 'wives' to claim pension both wives will be allowed to claim terminal benefits.

Her contention was that since G.Padma, the second wife of Late Gaddam Danam, was not his legally recognised wife, the Administrative Tribunal had erred in recognising her claim in the benefits due to the deceased.

G. Ruth, after the demise of her husband, had filed application before the District Collector and District Social Welfare Officer, to release all pending benefits of Late Gaddam Danam in her favour. She then found out that G. Padma, who was listed as the beneficiary of the Late Danam, was also claiming an entitlement in the said benefits.

A suit was initiated by G Ruth before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, praying that her late husband's pending benefits be released solely in her favour.

The Authorities refuted G Ruth's claim, and stated that the pension proposal was sent as per the request of the deceased, and he had listed G. Padma and their three daughters as beneficiaries.

The second wife also contested the case and stated before the Administrative Tribunal that although her late husband was married to G. Ruth Victoria, the two had separated after arriving at a settlement before the elders of the family in the 1979. Subsequently, G. Padma married the Late Gaddam Danam in 1986 and they had 3 children born in wedlock. She further stated that she was residing with her late husband and taking care of him till his death and even submitted original medical receipts to prove the same.

Per contra, the first and legally wedded wife stated before the Tribunal that, she married the Late Gaddam Danam in 1975 and was residing with him till his demise and that they had a son while they were married.

She also brought to the notice of the Court that she had filed suits for maintenance during the life of her husband and was also granted a conditional order 3,60,000 INR as attachment but the same was appealed against by her husband and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration and the attachment amount had been in abeyance ever since.

G. Ruth also told the Court that her late husband had initiated divorce proceedings against her, thereby admitting that she was his lawfully wedded wife. Moreover, the divorce petition did not mention the existence of a second wife.

The APAT considered the plea of both women, noticed that although the first wife was the legally recognised wife, the second wife was in cohabitation with the deceased, he enlisted her as his beneficiary and she was also able to produce medical bills to show that she had taken care of her deceased husband till the end.

With this observation, the Tribunal held that since Rule 50 of the AP Pension Rules allows 'wives' to claim pension both wives shall be allowed to claim terminal benefits, but since the second wife was able to submit original medical receipts, she will solely be entitled for medical reimbursement.

The Order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the first wife on the ground that since the second wife was not the legally recognised wife of the deceased, benefit of Rule 50 of the AP Pension Rules could not be extended to her. She stated that the deceased himself had acknowledged only his first wife to be his legally wedded wife, even as per the divorce petition.

The Division Bench after referring to a catena of judgements passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts held that pension is not the estate of the deceased,

"We observe that this provision Rule 50 is a beneficial provision in favour of woman with whom the government employee contracts another marriage during subsistence of the first marriage. This provision is therefore required to be construed liberally to achieve its very object of the grant of family pension after the death of the government employee.."

The Court also referred to the Executive Instructions Circular Memo, 1996; upon which reliance was placed on by the first wife and observed that when prior permission is not taken from the concerned authorities, before entering into a second marriage, the marriage is void and cannot be accepted.

Keeping the said instruction in mind, and simultaneously placing heavy reliance on the Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, a judgement passed by the Supreme Court, the Court observed that the purpose of law is to ensure social justice.

"Even if there was no permission for 2nd marriage, the 5th respondent cannot be denied family pension because of the Circular, provision rule 50 (12), when she had been nominated by the deceased Gaddam Danam."

With that conclusion, the Court held that the first wife is due maintenance amount of 3,60,000 INR that have been in abeyance, that the second wife is solely entitled to all services benefits and balance equity and that the pension shall be shared by both wives.

Case Title: Gaddam Ruth Victoria vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 44

Date: 18.08.23

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Sreemannarayana Vattikuti

Counsel for second wife: Advocate Satish Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment