Second wife not eligible for family pension

[1]

The second wife of a deceased government employee is not eligible for family pension if the first spouse is alive, the Madras high court has held.

However, the children of the second wife are entitled to the benefits, a division bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and S. Vimala said while disposing a widow’s petition for family pension.

According to petitioner Krishnaveni, she had married Sairam in 1983 and two children were born out of the wedlock. In 1986, he deserted her without reason.

He had been working as foreman in the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) under the defence ministry.

He died on November 17, 1995. When she approached the employer for family pension for her and the two children, she was shocked to find that the pension benefits were paid to one Meera and her two children because Sairam had named her as his nominee.

She filed a suit in the lower court, which upheld her legal heirship but disallowed the pension benefits, Krishnaveni said.

In her counter, Meera told the court that Sairam had married her in February 1987 and two children were born to them. But the court said her marriage was not legal under the Hindu Marriage Act since the first wife was alive.

However, Meera’s two children were deemed to be legitimate as per section 16 of the Act and so must be paid family pension, the court held and directed the CVRDE to apportion the payments among the five entitled claimants.

Take charge of Quarry: HC

The Madras high court has directed the authorities to immediately take possession of the stone quarry in Thirusoolam area in Chennai, which has been occupied by one M. Sekar and evict him from the site.

A division bench of Chief Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam disposed of a PIL by D. Ravi and dismissed the petition filed by M. Sekar to permit him to do quarrying for five years from 2008.

Sekar contended that as he was prevented from enjoying two acres of the 5.40 acre leased out to him because of encroachments and as no action was taken to remove the encroachments, he should be permitted to undertake quarrying.

Ravi’s counsel S.V. Prashanth contended that Sekar has no right to continue quarrying after the expiry of the lease in 2008 and if any area within the leasehold area has been encroached and he was unable to quarry he can only seek refund of the lease amount.