UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is against a judgment dated 4th May, 2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 350/01506/2014.

(2.) As a prelude to the instant lis, it needs to be stated that the deceased employee, namely, Siyaram Rajbanshi (hereinafter referred to as Siyaram), entered into service on 18th July, 1979 and died in harness on 13th September, 2012, while working in Traffic Department of the Railways. Siyaram married one Putul Devi (hereinafter referred to as Putul), who gave birth to one son, namely, Sanjoy Rajbanshi (hereinafter referred to as Sanjoy) and one daughter, namely, Usha Kumari. Putul expired on 4th November, 1979. Prior thereto, Siyaram married Sushila Devi (hereinafter referred to as Sushila) on 11th February, 1974 who gave birth to a daughter, namely, Gita Kumari on 4th February, 1976. After the demise of Siyaram, Sanjoy got compassionate appointment in place and stead of his deceased father but the death -cum -retirement benefits pertaining to the service of the deceased employee were not disbursed in favour of Sanjoy. Sushila's name stands incorporated in the service records of the deceased employee as the wife of Siyaram and she applied for disbursement of the death -cum -retirement benefits but such prayer was turned down by an order dated 2nd March, 2014 observing, inter alia, that as the marriage of Siyaram with Sushila was a second marriage solemnized during the lifetime of the first wife, the same was a void marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1955) and accordingly she would not be eligible to the settlement dues. Aggrieved thereby, Sushila preferred OA 350/01506/2014 impleading Sanjoy.

(3.) In the judgment impugned the learned Tribunal considered the provisions of Rule 75 of the Pension Rules, CPO circular No.60/92, Circular No. [E (NG) II/91/RC -1/136 dated 2nd January, 1992, RBE 1/92] and Sections 5, 16 and 17 of the said Act of 1955 and arrived at a finding that Sushila, in spite of being the second wife of Siyaram, would be entitled to the settlement dues in terms of the Pension Rules. In arriving at such finding the learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon various judgments and was of the view that since the second wife of the deceased employee had shared with him his bed and board, for a long uninterrupted period and had given birth to a female child, there occasions a presumption of a valid marriage which can only be rebutted by the parties to such a relationship and not by any third party. The learned Tribunal has also observed that the second wife, irrespective of the said marriage being void/voidable, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that a woman is also entitled to avail financial support from a man with whom she had "shared household" for a long period and had been in a "relationship in the nature of marriage" in terms of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.