Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Widow’s Plea For Family Pension, Says Contracting Second Marriage ‘Misconduct’

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the second wife of a government employee is not entitled to family pension if the second marriage was done without obtaining a divorce from the first wife and without obtaining prior permission from the State Government as is mandated under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965.

A bench comprising Justice Vivek Agrawal passed the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by a woman challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Police rejecting her claim to get family pension post her husband’s death.

The petitioner contended that her late husband had divorced his first wife and she had sworn an affidavit before the notary public to the effect that she had taken divorce in 1998-99 as per tribal customs and traditions. She further said her husband and the first wife were staying separately for the last 15 years and the latter had no claim on his body and property.

Advocate Manas Mani Verma, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, argued that as per the 1965 Rules, a government employee is not entitled to maintain two wives. Verma further argued that an affidavit sworn in before the notary is not a proof of divorce from the first wife.

Justice Agarwal agreed that irrespective of the personal laws, no government servant is entitled to remarry without first obtaining the official permission. The court further said that no such permission was produced by the petitioner, and thus, her claim for pensionary benefits had no legal sanctity.

"Thus, petitioner's claim as second wife has no legal sanctity in as much as there is no documentary evidence on record to show that deceased Uttam Singh Maravi had divorced his first wife Rain Kumari. In fact in the affidavit, name is mentioned as Renu Kumari, whereas in the official record, name is mentioned as Rain Kumari. Thus, even the genuineness of the affidavit is also under suspicion," said the court.

The court said the impugned order, when examined in the light of the Conduct Rules, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

"It is a speaking order giving reasons for denial of family pension to the petitioner, who claims to be second wife," Justice Agarwal said.

Case Title: Smt. Batasiya Maravi vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh WP 6948/2023

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 48