WP(C)/2530/2022 of UTPALA NATH GHOSE Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. on 15 July 2026

ORDER

Date : 16.07.202 Heard Mr. N. B. P. Singha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 as well as Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent.

2. By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release and disburse the monthly family pension of the deceased, Late Manik Chandra Ghose, in her favour.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband, Late Manik Chandra Ghose, who was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Operator) at the Zonal Headquarters, Bongaigaon, Assam, took voluntary retirement from service on 31.08.2018 due to ill health. Subsequently, he passed away on 30.11.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner intimated the respondent authorities regarding the death of her husband and sought release of the family pension and other retiral benefits. However, the respondent authorities did not release the monthly family pension on the ground that respondent No. 4, claiming to be the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, had raised an objection. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been instituted.

4. It is submitted at the Bar that respondent No. 4 is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.

5. Mr. N. B. P. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, fairly concedes that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee and that the marriage between the deceased employee and respondent No. 4 had continued to subsist during the lifetime of the deceased. Admittedly, the parties are Hindus by religion and are, therefore, governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. In view of the admitted position that the marriage between the deceased employee and respondent No. 4 was subsisting, the subsequent marriage with the petitioner cannot be recognized as a valid marriage in the eye of law. Consequently, the petitioner, not being the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, is not entitled to claim family pension.

7. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Pratima Deka v. State of Assam & 5 Ors., WP(C) No. 849/2019, dealing with an identical factual situation, dismissed the writ petition filed by the second wife on the ground that the first marriage was subsisting and the parties were governed by the Hindu Marriage Act.

8. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as follows: “3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents, including respondent No. 6, by filing an affidavit. The said respondent No. 6, represented by Shri P. Mahanta, learned counsel, submits that the claim of the petitioner appears to be misconceived inasmuch as respondent No. 6 is the first wife of the deceased employee and, as per law, it is respondent No. 6 who is entitled to the family pension. The aforesaid stand of respondent No. 6 is also endorsed by Shri N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, as well as Shri A. Hassan, learned Standing Counsel for the Accountant General, Assam.

4. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court has noticed that the parties are Hindus by religion and, under the Hindu Marriage Act, there is no concept of a valid second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage; rather, such marriage constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code and is also a ground for divorce. Shri Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that the children are also majors and, therefore, although some relief could have been granted to the children had they been minors, that situation does not arise in the present case.

5. In that view of the matter, this Court has no other option but to dismiss this petition inasmuch as a second wife is not entitled to family pension when the first marriage subsists, the facts being admitted and the parties being Hindus by religion.”

9. The facts of the present case are indistinguishable from those in Pratima Deka (supra). In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is the second wife and that the first marriage of the deceased employee with respondent No. 4 was subsisting, this Court finds no legal basis to grant the relief sought.

10. Consequently, no case for interference is made out.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

12. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant