WP/23134/2024 of C.MAHESWARI Vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA on 8 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the first respondent.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner's husband, one E. Chandran, was an employee of the first respondent Corporation. Subsequently, he retired from service in 2016 and, while receiving pension, died in 2019. It appears that, when the petitioner approached the first respondent seeking family pension, her request was rejected vide order dated 20.03.2024 on the ground that another woman, viz., the second respondent, Vijayalakshmi, was also claiming to be the wife of the said E. Chandran. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to obtain a succession certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, admittedly, the petitioner's name finds a place in the nomination details and that, even according to the counter-affidavit and the stand taken by the second respondent, who is allegedly the second wife, the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee, E. Chandran, took place prior to the alleged marriage between the deceased employee and the second respondent. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36049 of 2023, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents, including the legal heirship certificate. Despite the same, the first respondent, by relying upon the objection raised by the second respondent, directed the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned counsel would further submit that, if a second marriage is contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage, such second marriage becomes void ab initio. Once the marriage of the second respondent is void ab initio, the question of treating her as a widow does not arise. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.

5. Per contra, the said contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and would contend that, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.36049 of 2023, an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, the petitioner submitted records to establish that her marriage with the deceased employee took place on 18.04.1982 and that they have two children. She also submitted the relevant documents, viz., a photocopy of the marriage invitation, photographs of the marriage and the legal heirship certificate.

5.1. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, apart from the petitioner, the second respondent also submitted documents claiming to be the wife of the deceased employee. In support of her claim, she submitted the identity card and PAN card of her daughter, wherein the said E. Chandran was referred to as the father of the second respondent's daughter. Apart from the above, the second respondent also submitted a Will containing a recital regarding the marriage between herself and the deceased employee. Therefore, by relying upon Rule 40(5)(a) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LIC Pension Rules'), the learned Standing Counsel would submit that, where there are two widows, the pension is payable to both in equal shares and that, if the petitioner seeks the entire family pension, she must obtain a succession certificate. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the alleged marriage between the second respondent and the deceased employee, E.Chandran, would entitle the second respondent to be treated as a widow under the LIC Pension Rules. Even according to the stand taken by the second respondent before the first respondent, the recital in the alleged Will dated

06.11.2015 refers to the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee on 18.04.1982.

8. Admittedly, the second respondent married the deceased employee, E.Chandran, on 26.08.1990, subsequent to the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee. It is not the case of the second respondent that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee had been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Therefore, it is evident that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee was subsisting at the time of the alleged second marriage. As per Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is contrary to the statutory conditions prescribed therein and is void under Section 11 of the said Act. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the marriage between the second respondent and the deceased employee took place during the subsistence of the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee.

9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the alleged marriage between the second respondent and the deceased employee is void ab initio by virtue of Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. If that is the case, the second respondent cannot claim the status of a legally wedded wife, and consequently, the question of treating her as a widow for the purpose of claiming family pension does not arise. Furthermore, this Court has also considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.A.No.1072 of 2022 and W.A.No.977 of 2017. In view of the principles laid down therein, where a second marriage is void in law, the second wife cannot claim the status of a widow for the purpose in question. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

10. In view of the above legal position, the direction issued by the first respondent requiring the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate cannot be sustained, particularly when the alleged marriage between the second respondent and the deceased employee is void ab initio. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, is entitled to family pension in accordance with the applicable Pension Rules. Hence, this Court finds sufficient justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.03.2024, and the same is hereby quashed. As a consequence, the first respondent is directed to disburse the arrears of family pension payable to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is further directed to continue disbursing the family pension to the petitioner regularly, without fail.

11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

08-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To Life Insurance Corporation of India Represented By Its Manager (E and OS) OS Department 6th Floor, Chennai Division -I, LIC Building, No 153, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 23134 of 2024 08-10-2026