SUMITRA CHETRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by one Srimati Sumitra Chetri, the alleged second wife of an employee of the respondents, who died on 25.6.90. It appears from the petition that he had married a Christian lady in the year 1974. From the said marriage, 3 (three) children were born. It also appears that thereafter he married for second time a Hindu lady on 11.5.86. From the petition, it appears that a daughter was born out of the said second marriage from Hindu wife. At that time, the husband of the petitioner in the column 'Nominee' for the purpose of family pension in the service record gave the name of first wife, the Christian lady Mrs. Streamlet Mary Chetri. On the death of her husband, it appears that there was an agreement between the first wife and the second wife whereby the first wife had become entitled to draw all dues from the authorities except family pension which was agreed to be received by the second wife Smt Sumitra Chetri. It appears from Annexure-VIII letter dated 21.3.92 addressed to the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong by Streamlet Mary Chetri the first wife that Smt Streamlet Mary Chetri will be entitled to draw all dues excepting Family Pension which will go to Smt Sumitra Chetri i.e. the second wife. Pursuant to the understanding between the two ladies, the first wife is entitled to withdraw all dues and benefits receivable on the death of her husband except family pension which the lady herself had written to the authority to pay to the petitioner. The respondents, however, are expressing their inability to pay family pension to the second wife inasmuch as the same is not permissible to be paid under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(2.) Without going to the question of second marriage being invalid or whether the second wife is entitled to family pension or not, the question is of general principle i.e. whether the nominee can nominate somebody else to receive pensionary benefit of her late husband. The question was put by the Court to the learned counsel for the respondents Mr K.N. Choudhury who was unable to answer the question at all except submitting that under the Hindu Law, the second wife was not permissible nor the second wife had any right to receive pensionary benefit under the Act or the rules. However, the Court does not feel necessary to go into the matter as to whether the second wife was entitled to receive any pension under the Act or rules or not. From all these facts, a question arises whether a nominee, the wife, can nominate a third person, whether she is the wife or not to receive for and on behalf of the nominee, the first wife. To this, no answer is provided to this Court. However, it appears to me that this question is correlated to the fact that the amount to be paid to the petitioner is the family pension payable to the wife. Instead, the wife is allowing somebody else to receive money for and on her behalf. Nothing has been shown to me that the same cannot be done. In the peculiar facts of this, the second wife may or may not be the legal wife of the deceased. However, the second wife is also having a daughter from the deceased and under general principles of law of Hindu Law, even the children of illegal marriage or illicit marriage are entitled to maintenance from the husband or the heirs and representatives of the husband. There is no dispute that the daughter of the second wife is the daughter of the deceased. As such, there cannot be a bar to make payment of some amount towards the maintenance of the daughter of the second marriage. In this view of the matter, I hold that the second wife is also entitled to receive maintenance from the heirs and legal representatives of the:deceased for and on behalf of herself and her daughter. The same is permissible in law, particularly, in view of the fact that the first wife herself had written a letter to the respondent to pay family pension to the petitioner for the benefit of the petitioner which also covers her daughter. I find no bar in making such payment of pensionary benefit to the petitioner.

(3.) In view of the same, I direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the family pension as nominee of the nominee (i.e. Smt Streamlet Mary Chetri) of the deceased husband. Since the first wife is not claiming whatsoever towards the pensionary benefit, I find no reason as to why the respondents could not pay pensionary benefit to the present nominee of the first wife. I find no bar in paying the pensionary benefit to the nominee or the nominees of the deceased, who is otherwise entitled to maintains from the deceased's property in the hands of first legal wife. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive all arrears of family pension, if not already withdrawn by the first wife and in future the petitioner shall get monthly pension as per the letter dated 21.3.1992 of Streamlet Mary Chetri with Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong. The respondents to carry out the order with the month from the date of the service. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.