For purpose of granting family pension, law presumes valid marriage when there is long co-habitation: Madras HC reiterates

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that family pension cannot be denied to the second wife of a pensioner, only citing an invalid marriage, when there has been cohabitation between the two for a long period of time..In such a scenario, the law leans in favour of presuming that there exists a marriage, the Court held..Justice Anand Venkatesh relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhannulal and Others v. Ganesh Ram and others to emphasise that,.“... Law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have co-habitated continuously for a long time.”Justice Anand Venkatesh.The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a woman challenging an order by the Director of Local Fund Audits, which had denied her claim to the pension of a deceased medical doctor whom she claimed to have married..The woman petitioner had married the government doctor back in 1975, while he was still married to his first wife. The petitioner and the pensioner doctor also had three children. The Court was informed that they had lived together for 34 years until the pensioner’s death in 2009. The pensioner had retired in August 1999..Notably, the pensioner’s first wife had died in 1997. In May 1999, the pensioner nominated the petitioner as his legal heir to receive the family pension after his death..However, following his death in January 2009, the Director of Local Fund Audits refused to grant the family pension to the petitioner woman, on the ground that the marriage between the woman and the deceased pensioner was not a valid marriage. The Director held that the petitioner was not the legal heir of the pensioner and, was therefore, not entitled to the Family Pension. The order passed in this regard was challenged by the woman before the Madras High Court..The Madras High Court, in turn, pointed out that the law to be applied was already settled in the Supreme Court’s Dhannulal case. The Dhannulal ruling, in turn, was also applied in the similar Madras High Court case of S Suseela @ Mary Margaret v. The Superintendent of Police..Agreeing with the law laid down in both cases, Justice Venkatesh eventually opined that the petitioner was entitled to receive the family pension as the legal heir. This was in view of the death of the first wife, the long period of co-habitation between the petitioner and the deceased pensioner, and given that the pensioner had specifically nominated the petitioner for the receipt of pension after his death..The order passed in this regard states,.“It is very easy to brand the petitioner as a concubine and deprive her of her livelihood. However, the fact remains that the petitioner lived with the deceased Dr.A.Chinnasamy from the year 1975 up to his death in the year 2009. This means that she lived with him for nearly 34 years...During this period, it can always be construed that the petitioner and the deceased Dr.A.Chinnasamy were living as husband and wife and their long co-habitation itself raises that presumption of marriage. Added to that the deceased Dr.A.Chinnasamy had also nominated the petitioner on 11.05.1999 to receive the Family Pension after his death.”.The Court, however clarified,.“If the petitioner had made this claim when the first wife is alive, then obviously the petitioner will not be entitled for Family Pension, since her relationship is not recognized by law.”.Ultimately, the Court ruled in the petitioner’s favour, holding that,.“… this Court has to necessarily lean towards the presumption of marriage rather than branding the petitioner as a concubine. This will be the most appropriate way to deal with the facts of the present case, if justice has to be done to the petitioner.”Justice Anand Venkatesh (Madras High Court).Accordingly, the Court has directed the Director of Local Fund Audits to pay the family pension from the date of her husband's death, with arrears, to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks.