Bombay High Court: “Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage is Null and Void,” Upholds First Wife’s Claim for Family Pension — “Merely Being a Nominee Does Not Confer Legal Heirship”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and the District Court, which declared the first wife as the sole legal heir of the deceased and entitled to the family pension, rejecting the claims of the second wife. The court emphasized that a mere nomination of the second wife as the recipient of pensionary benefits does not entitle her to legal heirship in the presence of a subsisting first marriage.

Facts:

The deceased, Gangadhar, was a government servant who married his first wife in 1983, and they cohabited for six years before he married the second wife in 1989 without divorcing his first wife. Gangadhar had a son with the first wife and four children with the second wife. Upon Gangadhar’s death, a legal battle ensued between the two wives over the family pension and movable properties. The first wife filed an application for a Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which was granted by the Trial Court, declaring her as the sole legal heir.

Issues:

The main issue before the court was whether the second wife, nominated to receive Gangadhar’s pension benefits, could be considered a legal heir despite the first marriage subsisting.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The second wife contended that she was nominated by Gangadhar to receive pensionary benefits and therefore had the right to claim the family pension. She argued that she resided with Gangadhar for 25 years and took care of him until his demise, which should entitle her to legal recognition and pensionary benefits.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The first wife argued that Gangadhar’s second marriage was void under Hindu law as it took place during the subsistence of the first marriage. She further contended that merely being nominated as a beneficiary does not confer legal heirship on the second wife. The first wife also noted that Gangadhar paid maintenance to her until his death, demonstrating the validity of their marriage.

Analysis of the Law:

The court noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage is null and void. Thus, the second wife’s status could not be elevated to that of a legal heir merely based on nomination. The court also emphasized that under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, only legal heirs are entitled to succession rights and family pension.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai and Tulsa Devi Nirola v. Radha Nirola, where it was held that nomination alone does not establish legal heirship. In the present case, the facts were distinguished as all children of the second wife were adults and not entitled to pensionary benefits.

Court’s Reasoning:

The High Court observed that the nomination of the second wife by Gangadhar was done without disclosing the existence of his first wife, which would have been a breach of service conduct rules had it been revealed. The court concluded that the nomination did not confer any legal rights on the second wife, as her marriage was void ab initio under Hindu law. Therefore, the legal status of the first wife was upheld.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the second wife’s civil revision application, affirming the decisions of the lower courts that the first wife was the only legal heir entitled to the family pension and other benefits. It directed the Competent Authority to release the pension to the first wife immediately and pay her any arrears due.

Implications:

The ruling reiterates that nominations cannot override the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Indian Succession Act. It underscores that legal status as a spouse is determined by the validity of the marriage, not by nomination alone. This judgment will impact similar disputes where second marriages exist during the subsistence of a first marriage, especially in cases involving government servants and pensionary benefits.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction Against Use of Identical Mark “EVECARE” by Appellant for Female Hygiene Products: “Prima Facie Passing Off Case Established”