The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected a petition which stated that the second wife of a government employee should receive family pension, even if the employee married her without getting a divorce from his first wife and without obtaining prior permission from the State Government. The court cited the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 7965 as the basis for its decision.
Justice Vivek Agrawal, heading a single bench, dismissed a plea by a woman who challenged the Superintendent of Police’s refusal to grant her a family pension following her husband’s death. The petitioner, whose husband Uttam Singh Maravi had passed away, had approached the court seeking to overturn the Superintendent’s decision. According to the petitioner’s lawyer, Arun Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh had divorced his first wife, as evidenced by an affidavit sworn by her before a notary public. However, the respondent’s counsel, Manas Mani Verma, argued that the petitioner’s actions contravened the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1965, which prohibit an employee from maintaining two wives.
The court referred to Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, which stipulates that no government employee can enter into a second marriage without prior permission from the government, irrespective of personal laws. Justice Vivek Agarwal, heading the single Judge bench, held that the petitioner’s claim to receive a family pension as the second wife was not tenable because the act of contracting a second marriage is considered misconduct under the Conduct Rules of 1965. Therefore, the Superintendent’s decision to deny the family pension was reasonable and based on sound reasoning. The court found no grounds to declare the decision illegal or arbitrary.
The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim as the second wife lacked legal validity, and the Superintendent’s decision to deny her family pension was not arbitrary or illegal. The court further noted that the order in question was a “speaking order,” meaning it provided detailed reasons for the denial of the petitioner’s claim. As a result, the court dismissed the petition.
Source: https://lawtrend.in/second-wife-of-government-employee-not-entitled-to-pension-if-marriage-occurred-during-subsistence-of-first-marriage-mp-high-court/
You May Also Like:
Use Of Section 498-A IPC As A Weapon Rather Than Shield By Disgruntled Wives Becomes Common: Says Punjab and Haryana HC 
Hindu Marriage Act 1955 
Government has voiced its opposition to a plea for legalizing same-sex marriage in Supreme Court, stating that the concept of an Indian family involves a biological man and woman 
Keeping out daughters from compassionate appointment solely based on their marital status would amount to unlawful discrimination and a violation of Articles 14 and 15: Allahabad High Court